Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER In the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NILE WATERS

Major Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Egyptian engineers are still employed on the control of Nile waters at the Owen Falls Dam.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Egyptian engineers are resident at the Owen Falls Dam. They are there as observers.

Major Wall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Sudanese have an equal interest with the Egyptians in control of the Nile waters, and will he take the opportunity, when it arises, to remind Colonel Nasser that the White Nile is still controlled from British territory?

Mr. Lloyd: I think Colonel Nasser is familiar with that fact.

Mr. Stokes: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Egyptians subscribed£2 million towards

the heightening of this dam, and that, in fact, whether they like it or not, as a result, anyone who does control it can stop 80 per cent. of the flow of the White Nile for three years?

Mr. Lloyd: It is, I think, a fact that considerable sums of money were subscribed. Of course, at the moment the plans for storing water have not yet begun to take effect. There is still a technical survey to take place, and after that an arrangement to be made by the Egyptian authorities for compensation to certain interests.

Mr. Benn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the changed situation in the relations between the United Kingdom and Egypt, he will now initiate a conference of representatives of all those countries which depend upon Nile waters.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The situation has not changed since this question was last raised in the House. As my hon. Friend said in reply to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) on 11th February, Her Majesty's Government would be in favour of holding a conference at the appropriate time. Before a full-scale conference can usefully be held, a great deal of technical consultation and preparation will be needed. Such discussions are already taking place between the technical authorities in British East Africa and the Sudan.

Mr. Benn: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that the conditions which prevail at the moment in regard to the interests of the


user countries, including Egypt, will be fully considered in summoning any new conference?

Mr. Lloyd: Certainly the interests of the user countries will be borne in mind.

Mr. H. Fraser: Would my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that any international agreement here can only be based on the proper respect for international law by all countries concerned?

Mr. Lloyd: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It seems to me that this is a precedent for having regard to the users' interests which might well be followed in another connection.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST-WEST TRADE

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to make a statement on the relaxation of strategic controls on western trade with China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the progress of the discussions on relaxing the embargo on exports to China.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a statement concerning the meeting of the China Committee of the Consultative Group, held last week, for the purpose of dis-discussing the lifting of the embargo on trade with China.

Mr. Collins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now announce his proposals for removing the restrictions on trade with China.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: A meeting of the China Committee is being held today at which we shall make a further effort to reach agreement on the relaxation of the China trade controls. I will report to the House as soon as possible.

Mr. Swingler: Can the Foreign Secretary now say when he is to report to the House? Are we to take it that the Press reports that the final meeting on this matter is today are accurate, and that therefore on the result of today's meeting the Government will be in a

position to declare their position on the subject?

Mr. Lloyd: I very much hope so.

Mr. Lewis: May we also take it that the Government and the Foreign Secretary still adhere to the statements they have made during the past few weeks that, so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, they will insist with the Americans that we shall try to get this embargo placed at least on terms not less favourable than that operated by the Soviet bloc?

Mr. Lloyd: We certainly adhere to the view that this differential should not continue.

Mr. Ridsdale: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether we may have an opportunity before a decision is reached to debate this subject in the House?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think I can promise my hon. Friend that. This is a matter which really has been under discussion for so long that a decision must be reached.

Mr. Collins: Can the Foreign Secretary say whether, when he makes the Government's decision known to the House, it will be immediately operative?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think I can promise the hon. Gentleman that. There still may have to be certain arrangements made which will take a little time to be brought into effect.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now make a further statement on the progress of the disarmament talks and the prospects of reaching international agreement.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As the hon. Member will have observed in the Press, the delegates of the United States, France and the Soviet Union have been back to their own countries for discussions. They returned over the weekend. A further meeting of the Sub-Committee is being held this afternoon. I do not think that it would be wise for me to say more today than that I believe that there are some grounds for hope that a partial disarmament agreement may be possible.

Mr. Swingler: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the great hopes raised by Press reports of the American and Russian attempts to reach compromise agreements? Will the Government do everything possible in putting forward proposals now before the new talks to maximise agreement on the existing discussions?

Mr. Lloyd: We certainly do want to put forward proposals which we think will maximise agreement. That has been our whole purpose throughout these discussions.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: In view of the fate of partial agreements about armaments before the war, will the Foreign Secretary urge that any partial agreement made now shall be only a preliminary to a complete agreement to follow quickly?

Mr. Lloyd: We certainly would like any partial agreement that may be made to fit in to the first stage of the Anglo-Freneh plan, to which we still adhere.

Oral Answers to Questions — BAGDAD PACT NUCLEAR TRAINING CENTRE

Sir J. Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what grant this country is to give to the Bagdad Pact Nuclear Centre for the production of isotopes.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ian Harvey): None, Sir. The Bagdad Pact Nuclear Training Centre does not produce isotopes. It is designed to give training in some practical applications of isotopes and to do research in them. The centre is using isotopes purchased from the Atomic Energy Authority. The total United Kingdom contribution to the centre in 1956–57 was£30,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — WILTON PARK, STEYNING

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now able to make a further statement as to the future of the centre for promoting Anglo-German relations at Wilton Park, Steyning.

Mr. Ian Harvey: Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Government have examined the possibility of continuing Wilton Park in a

wider European form. This depends, however, on the interest and support of other European Governments. These Governments are being approached. In the meantime, Wilton Park is being continued for another year on as broad a basis as the support received justifies.

Sir F. Medlicott: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in view of the belligerent and combative atmosphere in which so large a part of the world has indulged in recent days, his announcement is as welcome as it is timely?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS

Suez Canal

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the recent discussions in the Security Council on the Suez problem.

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the result of the consideration by the Security Council of the question of free passage for ships of all nationalities through the Suez Canal; and whether Egypt has yet given an assurance to the Security Council that she will comply with the request made upon her in 1951 to lift restrictions on all ships passing through the Suez Canal.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Discussions took place in the Security Council on 20th and 21st May. It was the virtually unanimous view that the present Egyptian Declaration could not constitute a final settlement. Continuing responsibility of the United Nations was clearly emphasised. The French and United Kingdom delegates, with others, formulated a number of specific questions about the Egyptian Declaration. These points were taken up and developed by the United States representative in his summing up from the Chair. The Egyptian delegate did not go further in his assurances about freedom of passage through the Canal than the terms of the Declaration of 24th April itself.
The debate showed once again the weight of international opinion upon this matter. As I have said before, it is in the interest of Egypt herself that the system for operating the Canal should command the confidence of the users. It is now for


the Egyptian Government to state their position in answer to the questions put in the Security Council debates of April and last week.

Mr. Henderson: Would the Foreign Secretary say whether the question of Israeli shipping using the Suez Canal peacefully is likely to be considered by the Security Council as part of the Suez problem?

Mr. Lloyd: The position in regard to that is that the Egyptian Government have said in their declaration that
 It remains the unaltered policy and firm purpose of the Government of Egypt to respect the terms and spirit of the Constantinople Convention of 1888 and the rights and obligations arising therefrom.
Our view is that under that Convention Israeli ships are entitled to go through the Canal.

Mr. Janner: In addition to the Convention, to which the Foreign Secretary has referred, is it not a fact that under Article 25 of the Charter Egypt is under an obligation to accept the declaration of the Security Council in respect of passage of Israeli ships through the Canal? Will he and those who are interested with him continue to emphasise the fact that Egypt has no right whatsoever to go behind that Article?

Mr. Lloyd: I agree that the argument is reinforced by that point. We should start again from the Declaration of 24th April this year by the Egyptian Government, which I think, covers the point.

Permanent Force

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now instruct his representative at the United Nations to propose that the General Assembly or the Security Council should consider the establishment of a United Nations permanent force and the strengthening of the Peace Observation Commission as part of the United Nations machinery for settling disputes between nations.

Mr. Snow: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what conclusion he has reached on the organisation of a permanent United Nations force which could be readily on call

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: While Her Majesty's Government hope that some-

thing of a permanent nature may develop from the present United Nations Emergency Force, they think it would be premature to take an initiative for the establishment of a United Nations permanent force or the strengthening of the Peace Observation Commission. In present circumstances, such an initiative would be more likely to cause the disruption of the United Nations Emergency Force.

Relief and Works Agency (United Kingdom Contribution)

Mr. Collins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the United Kingdom's annual contribution to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency will be paid.

Mr. Ian Harvey: My right hon. and learned Friend gave this information to the House in detail in the course of his speech on 16th May.

Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that the funds of the organisation which is looking after Arab refugees in Jordan are said to be almost exhausted? Will he give an assurance that the organisation will receive funds in sufficient time to enable it to continue its work and avoid consequences which otherwise might be disastrous?

Mr. Harvey: I can only draw attention to the assurance given by my right hon. and learned Friend. Of course, we cannot give any assurance on the part of other Governments about their contributions.

Charter

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the forthcoming United Nations Charter Review Conference, he will make a statement on the proposals of Her Majesty's Government for strengthening the authority of the United Nations.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: It has not yet been decided when a conference to review the Charter will be held. Her Majesty's Government favour the holding of such a conference and on 3rd June the Committee appointed by the Tenth Session of the General Assembly in 1955 will meet to consider the question of fixing a time and place for a Charter Review Conference, and its organisation and procedures.
This Committee, will not itself review the Charter.
Until there has been agreement about this Conference, it would be premature to make a Government statement on proposals for amending the Charter.

Mr. Henderson: As the Foreign Secretary has repeatedly criticised the United Nations for not possessing sufficient authority to deal with many international crises, can we take it that the Government are at least considering positive proposals which they may put forward in the event of the Conference being held?

Mr. Lloyd: We are certainly considering positive proposals for improving the Charter. My complaint has been not so much of the lack of the power to do things as of the lack of a common will to do things.

Mr. Pitman: May we assume that the proposals for improving the Charter are for strengthening the United Nations and that it is not improvement by way of weakening it? It is an ambiguous situation. and we should like to know which of the two it is.

Mr. Lloyd: I should think that we should seek measures which will make it easier for the United Nations to exercise a common will.

Mr. Henderson: Has not the Foreign Secretary repeatedly said that all that the General Assembly could do was to make recommendations? If that is the position, surely the Government will seek to strengthen the powers of the General Assembly?

Mr. Lloyd: There comes into the matter the very difficult question of voting procedure, whether there should be weighted voting, and so on. At the moment, it is possible for a majority to be found from very small countries which have little responsibility, and this majority may overrule other more responsible countries.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the Foreign Secretary give an assurance that the Government will not again put forward the ill-judged proposal which they made to the Americans and Canadians at Bermuda, that the "Uniting for peace" resolution should be rescinded?

Mr. Lloyd: I am not at all aware of the premise upon which the right hon. Gentleman bases his supplementary question. I am not aware of any such thing.

Oral Answers to Questions — CUBA (MR.J. TOPHAM)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now discussed the question of compensation for Mr. J. Topham, of Gloucester Street, Brighton, with the Cuban authorities; and what is the present position.

Mr. Ian Harvey: Her Majesty's Ambassador at Havana raised the case of Mr. Topham with the Cuban Foreign Minister again on 17th April last. The Minister undertook to take the matter up personally with the Cuban Minister of Defence, and to let Her Majesty's Ambassador know the result as soon as possible. My right hon. and learned Friend is awaiting a report from our Ambassador, and I shall send the information to my hon. Friend as soon as we have received it.

Mr. Teeling: Does my hon. Friend realise that this matter has now gone on, I believe, for well over a year and is causing considerable embarrassment to a very hard-up family in my constituency? Could he tell us what result Lord Reading had from the statement and request he made on his last visit to Cuba?

Mr. Harvey: I share the anxiety of my hon. Friend in this matter. I can give him an assurance that we will press this matter. I am afraid I cannot disclose any experience that Lord Reading may have had.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Heavy Industry (Deconcentration)

Mr. Elwyn Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards proposals made to them by the German Federal Government to waive the allied post-war deconcentration measures agreed upon in respect of Krupps.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action has been taken to implement the agreement signed in 1953 by Herr Alfred Krupp von Bohlen with the British, French and United States Governments to sell off his coal and steel interests in five years, and that signed the following year by Chancellor Adenauer with the Western Powers committing his Government to the destruction of the pre-war cartels; what recent discussions or negotiations with Her Majesty's Government have ensued for the alteration or abrogation of these agreements; and whether he will give an assurance that it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to maintain these agreements without amendment.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: In the Convention on the settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and Occupation, signed at Bonn in 1952 and amended at Paris in 1954, the Federal Government have agreed to complete the programme of deconcentration of the German heavy industry undertaken under Allied High Commission legislation. This programme includes the coal and steel holdings of the firm of Krupp.
As an explanation of the documents in the case is rather lengthy, I think it would be more convenient to the House if I were to circulate a note in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
It remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to maintain the Bonn Conventions, but the Federal Government have drawn the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and that of the French and American Governments, to difficulties that have arisen in the application of some of the deconcentration measures.
Further information has been requested from the Federal Government about the nature of the difficulties encountered and the extent to which their deconcentration obligations under the Conventions have so far been carried out. Once this information has been obtained, the matter will be discussed with the other signatories to the Bonn Conventions.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Do those difficulties affect the substance of these deconcentration measures?

Mr. Lloyd: As I indicated in my Answer, I have not yet got information

as to the extent to which deconcentration has already been carried out, but I think we shall find that it has been to a considerable extent in this matter.

Mr. Lewis: Before agreeing with the West German Government on any alteration to the agreements which they may suggest, will the Foreign Secretary give the House an assurance that he will consult the House, or at least inform the House, before taking any irrevocable steps?.

Mr. Lloyd: I certainly think I can give an undertaking to inform the House, but I should like to consider the other question the hon. Member has put. Of course, the first step must be consultation with the other signatories to the Bonn Conventions.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman press on the German Government that, in our view, the Krupp family and the Krupp firm are a very dangerous influence in German affairs? Before the war, they purchased the German Press and financed the organisation by which the Weimar Republic was undermined.

Mr. Lloyd: I think the Federal German Government are fully conscious of all the facts about this matter. I think it is a question of practical difficulty. Considerable assets of the Krupp firm, I understand, have been sold.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the undertaking given by the West German Government absolute for all time? Is it not the case that in decartelisation or deconcentration, or whatever one calls it, there is nothing to prevent any of the firms from coming together again, now that Germany is a sovereign Power, after the German Federal Government have observed their obligations?

Mr. Lloyd: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to do so, I should like to consider that question. I cannot, without refreshing my memory, say whether there was any provision to prevent the re-integration of the parts which have been disposed of.

Mr. J. Hynd: Will the Foreign Secretary emphasise that the agreement was one not on decartelisation but on the de-concentration of heavy industry, and that,


whatever merits it may have had at that time, it has now been outdated by events? Is it not true that the question of cartelisation is already adequately looked after by the European Coal and Steel Community, and that, whatever we may think about the Krupp family, the agreement does not prevent it from re-investing in other industries, including atomic energy, the money it has obtained from selling its coal and steel shares? Would it not be better to cancel the arrangement? Would it not be better if Herr Krupp invested his money in coal and steel instead of atomic energy?

Mr. Lloyd: The matters raised by the hon. Gentleman are certainly among those which we shall consider.

Following is the note:

Deconcentration of the Coal, Iron and Steel Industries in Germany—Krupp Plan
In accordance with the provisions of Allied High Commission Law No. 27, a plan was drawn up in March, 1953, by the Combined Steel Group of the Allied High Commission for Germany for the deconcentation of the firm of Friedrich Krupp. The order giving effect to this plan was signed by the United Kingdom, French and American Chairmen of the Combined Steel Group. At the same time Alfred Krupp von Bohlen made a Statutory Declaration to the effect that he would not use the proceeds of the sale of the securities to re-acquire interests in the German coal or iron and steel industries. The provisions of Allied legislation in Germany about deconcentration had previously been confirmed and accepted by the Federal Government in the Bonn Conventions of 1952 and these provisions were retained when these Conventions were revised and amended in Paris in 1954.

German Democratic Republic (Trade Office)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why he will not permit the German Democratic Republic to establish a commercial and trade office in this country; and by what authority he claims the right to prevent a trade office representing this Government being established in Great Britain.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government do not recognise the so-called German Democratic Republic. The refusal to allow the establishment in this country of a commercial or trade office claiming to represent the East German regime is a consequence of this.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAUDI ARABIA (SUPPLY OF ARMS)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct Her Majesty's Government's representative at the United Nations to raise in the Security Council the matter of the export of arms by the United States of America to Saudi Arabia, in view of the threat to world peace involved in Saudi Arabia's declared intention to use those arms against Israel in the Gulf of Aqaba.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have studied some of the Saudi Arabian statements in this connection. The latest was in a letter dated 7th May from the Saudi Arabian Permanent Representative at the United Nations. In that the Saudi Arabian Government reserved their rights to take action to defend their interests in conformity with the United Nations Charter. In these circumstances, my answer to the right hon. Gentleman is, "No, Sir."

Mr. Shinwell: Does not the Foreign Secretary realise that the export of arms from any quarter to Saudi Arabia is just a repetition of the situation which prevailed before the Suez affair, when Egypt was provided with arms by the United Kingdom and other countries? As long as arms are provided in this fashion, without any assurance that they will not be used against any other State in the Middle East, is it not likely that there will be a repetition of what occurred?

Mr. Lloyd: I understand that these arms were supplied on the understanding that they should be used to
…foster international peace and security within the framework of the United Nations.

Mr. Shinwell: Let us be explicit about this. Does that statement mean that arms furnished by the United States or any other country to Saudi Arabia will not be used in aggression against the State of Israel?

Mr. Lloyd: So far as concerns the agreement, or the exchange of letters, between the United States and the Saudi Arabian Government, there would clearly be a breach if the arms were used for aggression against the State of Israel.

Mr. Bevan: Is it not a fact that the arms are precise and deadly and the conditions ambiguous and innocuous?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that would certainly apply to the supply of Soviet arms.

Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that, under the recent American agreement with Saudi Arabia, American material help is now being given for the construction of a naval base at Aqaba for the direct purpose of threatening Eilat and once again strangling that Israeli port? Are not the Americans at this moment providing torpedo boats, naval instructors, patrol boats, and a whole flotilla of naval attack craft? Cannot we intervene in the matter?

Mr. Lloyd: With regard to the question of a naval base, I have no information to that effect. If the hon. Lady would care to table a Question, I will look into the matter. With regard to the supply of arms, the obligation which we have undertaken is to try to prevent an arms race. We have amplified that by saying that we will try to ensure that some balance is kept. I am not satisfied that the supply of these arms disturbs the balance.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Armament Manufacturers (Payments)

Dr. Broughton: asked the Minister of Supply what sum of money has been donated by his Department, since August, 1955, to firms employed on the production of armaments and other war materials in the 1939–45 war, including donations made to the firms' sports clubs and benevolent funds, in recognition of contributions made to final victory.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Aubrey Jones): None, Sir. Payments are made only in settlement of valid claims. In one case a claim for the war-time use of a group of inventions was settled, at the claimant's request, by payment to the firm's sports and benevolent funds.

Dr. Broughton: Were not the manufacturers of arms very well paid during the war? If the Government are to distribute largesse in this manner, would it not be better to give it to the men

who fought in the front line, or, better still, to the war disabled?

Mr. Jones: There is no question of any distribution of largesse. This was a valid claim, and it was settled on terms which were extremely favourable to the public purse.

Armstrong Siddeley Motors, Coventry

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Supply if he will make a statement upon the policy of his Department in so far as research and development work at Armstrong Siddeley Motors, Coventry, is concerned.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: My policy is to consider the capacity of this company to meet the requirements of my Ministry along with the capacity of other companies. Military requirements are, however, decreasing, and I am therefore very glad to see that this company is actively seeking work in other fields to supplement the military work they are still doing.

Miss Burton: The Minister may be satisfied, but nobody else is. As the Ministry of Supply considers the company to be one of the most technically competent in the country, as it has factory space amounting to 2¾million square ft., plus valuable equipment, and as a most advanced technical team has had to be built up because of a contract secured in competition with all the aeroengine companies in the country, but the contract has now been cancelled, will the right hon. Gentleman say what steps he proposes to take?

Mr. Jones: Regardless of the technical competence of the company, it is a fact that some contraction of the aircraft industry is inevitable. I hope the hon. Lady will not think it unfair of me if I remind her that only a short time ago she was the chairman of a committee which recommended a contraction in the number of military aircraft projects. I hope she is not running away from that recommendation now that she sees her constituency is affected.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend carefully consider the future of these companies, which have scientific teams built up over a period of years, to see that the effort is not


wasted, but that there is some coordination with other Ministries to ensure that the work is done to the best advantage of the economy of the country?

Mr. Jones: Yes, Sir. The future of these factories is very much in my mind, and I am in constant consultation with other Departments in this connection.

Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware that in Coventry we never run away from anything, much less from the Ministry of Supply? Furthermore, is he aware that I stand by every word in that report, which suggested that the less efficient companies, not the outstanding ones in the country, should have work taken from them?

Mr. Jones: I only hope that the hon. Lady is not expecting me to run away from her.

Royal Ordnance Factories

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Supply if he will now give details of the effects of defence cuts upon employment and production at the Royal Ordnance factories at Radway Green and Swynnerton; and what steps he is taking to transfer to civil work where alternative employment does not exist in the locality.

Mr. D. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Supply if he will make a statement on the future of the Maltby Royal Ordnance factory.

Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Supply if he will make a statement concerning the future of Radway Green Ordnance factory, Cheshire.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: An immediate effect has been the redundancy just announced of 610 industrial and 47 non-industrial employees at Radway Green, 350 part-time industrials at Swynnerton, and 150 women industrials at Maltby. These factories still have a considerable amount of defence work in hand and, as their plant is specialised, there is little or no present scope for introducing civil work.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister aware that that is a most reactionary and unimaginative decision? Has he not studied the figure for unemployment in North Staffordshire. which is already considerably higher than the national average, because alternative employment does not

exist? Will he not listen to the pleas that we have made for conversion to civil work of these very well-equipped factories, on which millions of pounds have been spent, instead of creating additional redundancy and unemployment?

Mr. Jones: I am afraid that the hon. Member is smelling reaction where there is none. There is no question of principle here, but a question of practical difficulty. These factories are still engaged on defence work, and the machinery is too specialised to allow the introduction of civil work at the same time.

Air Commodore Harvey: Can my right hon. Friend say what discussions he has had, and the result, with the Minister of Labour as to the future employment of these men?

Mr. Jones: I have, Sir, indicated to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour the likely level of redundancies.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware of the serious position likely to arise at Maltby? The factory there is very efficient, the machinery is probably the most efficient we have in any Royal Ordnance factory in the country, and the relationships between employees and employers have been remarkably good. If, as is rumoured, that factory is to be handed over to civil authorities and private firms, will the Minister see that the machinery that can be adapted is used for these purposes?

Mr. Jones: Yes, Sir. I am very well aware of all these considerations. I would only ask hon. Members not to blind themselves to the necessity for some contraction of defence work.

Mr. Shinwell: But this is a very important matter. If that is so, what constructive proposals have the Government in contemplation? If we are to have partial disarmament and cutting of defence production, surely the Government must be ready to deal with the new situation as it arises?

Mr. Jones: I think that this matter was dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour in the defence debate some weeks ago. As things now stand, the general prospects for industry are such that men displaced from defence ought to be absorbed into civil work without difficulty.

SR.53 Aircraft

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Minister of Supply how many rocket fighters SR.53 have been ordered for the Royal Air Force; and whether it has now been decided to continue with supersonic fighter projects.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: None, Sir. The SR.53 has not yet reached the state of development at which a production order would be appropriate.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the Minister aware that, whereas the White Paper on Defence recently accepted by the House was quite specific on the question of non-requirement by the R.A.F. for an advanced supersonic fighter, there was silence on the subject of any requirements by the Royal Navy? If it is even intended to issue an order to the Royal Navy, will a formal statement be made to that effect?

Mr. Jones: Yes, Sir. Paragraph 62 of the White Paper specifically referred to the R.A.F. It did not exclude a supersonic fighter for the Navy, and this fighter might well, in fact, be the one to be determined on. If that is the case, then certainly a statement will be made.

"Corporal" Missile

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Supply the cost of the weapon "Corporal" recently supplied to the Army.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: The United States Government are supplying the "Corporal" missiles as part of their military assistance to this country.

Mr. Hughes: Are we paying the United States anything for them? Has the Minister any idea of what they cost?

Mr. Jones: No, Sir. The implication of my Answer is that we pay nothing for them.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Mental Illness (Certification and Psychiatry)

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the manifest disadvantages of court action for cases of this nature, he will introduce legislation to establish suitable independent committees

of appeal for the ready access of those who consider themselves to have been unjustly certified and detained under the Lunacy Act and have substantive evidence to produce to that effect, and whose primary object is to show a clean bill of health.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan): I think that we should await consideration of the Report of the Royal Commission on the law relating to mental illness, which is expected to be published on Wednesday.

Dr. Johnson: While welcoming the imminence of this Report, may I ask my hon. Friend if he is fully aware of how any threat of legislation in cases of certification of this kind does colour the outlook of all concerned, and in the event of there being any recommendation in this respect in the Royal Commission's Report, will my hon. Friend look upon its implementation as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I would rather have a look at the Report before I answer that Question.

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that, as a consequence of the South-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board experiment in domiciliary psychiatry in the Worthing area, the admissions to mental hospital in that area have decreased from 166 in the first quarter of 1956 to 64 in the first quarter of 1957; and, in view of the urgent need to relieve the present overcrowding in mental hospitals throughout the country, how soon he will be extending a similar service to the remainder of the country.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Dennis Vosper): I am aware of this experimental scheme, which resembles other schemes in operation elsewhere in this country in reducing the number of admissions to mental hospitals. Its early results are promising, and I will watch its progress with interest, but it is too early to come to a final conclusion about it.

Dr. Johnson: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this is the simplest and most effective way of curing the overcrowding in mental hospitals, and will he, when coming to a conclusion on the


subject, expedite matters so as to introduce these experiments on the widest base possible?

Mr. Vosper: I have studied this scheme. I think it is most promising, but I am sure that its authors would be the first to agree that it needs more time before we can be quite certain as to its results.

Dr. Summerskill: Can the Minister say whether there are enough psychiatrists in the country to provide a domiciliary psychiatric service?

Mr. Vosper: It would not be possible to establish a scheme like this in every area of the country immediately, but, if successful, and if the Royal Commission recommends an extension, most certainly we will do what we can about it.

Infant Mortality Rate, Manchester

Mr. W. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in 1956, in the City of Manchester, deaths of infants under the age of one year increased in number for the first time in ten years; and what information he has as to the causes of this.

Mr. Vosper: I am aware of the small increase to which the hon. Member refers. As, however, the figures for related live births are still only provisional, the 1956 infant mortality rate cannot yet be determined, and it would be premature to look for causes.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that the Medical Officer of Health of the City of Manchester—who, after all, is on the spot—is of the opinion that this deplorable trend is due to shortage of ante-natal and obstetric beds and to bad housing? On the first point, is he aware that there is not the slightest chance of improving that position if he carries on cutting the financial allocations to regional hospital beds? On the second point, will he lend the support to his Department to the plea of the City of Manchester that some decision he taken by the Government about land for Manchester's housing programme?

Mr. Vosper: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, every year for the last five years the figure for the infantile death rate in Manchester has shown a decrease,

from 37 in 1950 to 28 in 1955. Should there be an increase such as the hon. Member has in mind, it will be an increase of only one point—still a great improvement. I do not think there is cause for undue alarm.

Orange Juice and Cod Liver Oil

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement on the recorded effects of the public provision of orange juice and cod liver oil on the health of infants and young children since the inception of the scheme.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I am afraid it is not possible for these effects to be isolated from those of other nutritional and health factors.

Dr. Stross: While it may well be true that they cannot be scientifically isolated, has the Parliamentary Secretary noted the expression of opinion in some quarters that all the work that was done to help children in this way has been useless? Does the Department concur with that opinion, or does he agree with me, for example, that it is nonsense to say so?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: As the hon. Member probably knows, my right hon. Friend has recently received and is now considering an expert report on welfare foods from a joint committee of the English and Scottish Standing Medical Advisory Committees, and I think my right hon. Friend would like to have time to consider that.

Doctors (Lists)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that on 1st July, 1956, there were in England and Wales 2,989 doctors with lists of over 3,500 providing general medical service under the National Health Service Act as principals and 1,914 as assistants and trainee assistants; and what progress has been made in reducing the lists of over 3,500 of the 1,075 doctors without assistants.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I think that the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. A single-handed general practitioner may not have more than 3,500 patients, or 5,500 if he has an assistant. A doctor in a partnership may, however, have a


list of more than 3,500 patients, even though he has no assistant, but the average for the partnership must not exceed 3,500.

Immigrants (Tuberculosis)

Mr. Remnant: asked the Minister of Health what precautions are taken to prevent sufferers from tuberculosis entering this country, particularly from the West Indies.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: An alien can be medically examined and refused permission to land. There is no such restriction on British subjects, but investigations have failed to show any unusual incidence of tuberculosis among West Indians in this country.

Mr. Remnant: Does my hon. Friend not agree that, but for outside sources of infection coming into this country, this scourge can be eradicated comparatively simply, and, from whatever source it is coming, will he take steps to see that the time for eradicating the disease is not postponed?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: My hon. Friend ought to be aware of several factors in considering this situation. There have been in the last few years some vigorous campaigns for vaccination in the West Indian territories from which these immigrants come, and there have been investigations recently in London, Birmingham and West Bromwich, where there are considerable numbers of West Indians, which have, frankly, shown no cause for alarm.

Dr. Stross: Is it not a fact that the essential problem here is not in people from the West Indies who are infected coming here, but that so many of them are negative reactors who have never been in contact with tuberculosis and run a very serious risk of infection when they come into our big cities? Is not the right attitude to take to give them protection as soon as they come here, and make certain that they have it?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: That is a very helpful question. Of course, West Indians may be susceptible on arrival, and, for that reason, those concerned in mass radiography units have been directing attention to where the West Indians are living.

Smoking (Lung Cancer)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Health whether he has now received a further report from the Medical Research Council on the connection between smoking and lung cancer; and what action he is taking thereon.

Mr. Vosper: I understand from my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord President of the Council that the result of the Medical Research Council's review of this subject should be available within a few weeks.

Mr. Lipton: Although this report will be a big blow to the tobacco companies and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—[HON. MEMBERS: "How do you know?"]—hon. Members will see—may we have an assurance that this time the Minister will not flout the weight of medical opinion but will take the most vigorous action to publicise the undoubted danger of lung cancer arising from cigarettes, since the time has now come when the evidence is overwhelming—and it will be reinforced, that action by the Government must be taken?

Mr. Vosper: I am not aware that either I or any of my predecessors have flouted the weight of public opinion on this issue. I think we had better await publication of the report.

Mr. Farey-Jones: In view of the interest in this matter, can my right hon. Friend inform the House whether his Department has yet made up its mind to underwrite the International Cancer Congress which is to be held in this country?

Mr. Vosper: That is a separate issue which hardly arises on this Question.

Smallpox (Vaccination)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Health why doctors in general practice who vaccinate their patients going overseas against smallpox are not permitted to stock the official international certificates of vaccination.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I think that the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. Any general medical practitioner who requires the forms for the international certificate of vaccination against smallpox is supplied with them on request.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Radiographers

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Health (1) what is the overall shortage of radiographers in England and Wales in the National Health Service; and what is the total number employed at the present time;
(2) what is the salary scale of a radiographer in the initial grade, and the scale of a superintendent radiographer who is in charge of eight or more assistants.

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Health whether he can give an estimate of the number of radiographers under training at the present time; and whether this number will be sufficient to make good the present shortage in the National Health Service.

Mr. Jennings: asked the Minister of Health (1) what was the overall shortage of radiographers in England and Wales in the National Health Service in November. 1956, expressed as a percentage of establishment; and what are the comparative figures to the nearest convenient date;
(2) whether he will give an estimate of the annual wastage of radiographers from the National Health Service due to causes other than marriage;
(3) whether he is aware that the present salary scales and conditions, for qualified radiographers in the National Health Service are having a detrimental effect on the future prospects of the radiography branch of the hospitals service; and what proposals he has for improving these scales.

Mr. Gibson: asked the Minister of Health what were the numbers of radiographers employed in the National Health Service in 1952; what is the number today; and whether he is satisfied that the hospitals are satisfactorily staffed with radiographers.

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Health what further steps he is taking to improve the recruitment of radiographers.

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to remedy the shortage of radiographers in the National Health Service.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Health what is the estimated shortage of radiographers in the hospital services; to what reason he ascribes this shortage; and what special steps are being taken to overcome it.

Lieut-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Health to what extent there is a shortage of radiographers; how far this is due to the conditions of service and low remuneration; and whether he will have a full inquiry made on all aspects of their employment and remuneration.

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Health to what extent the shortage of radiographers is due to inadequacy in their salary scales; and what other circumstances have contributed to the shortage.

Mr. Vosper: The number of radiographers in the hospital service in England and Wales at the end of 1952 was 2,652 whole-time and 199 part-time. The provisional figures at the end of 1956 were 3,087 and 289, respectively. There has been, therefore, a marked increase, but there is evidence to suggest that it has not been enough to meet the increased demand for X-ray services. A sample inquiry in four hospital regions a year ago indicated that there was a shortage of 16 per cent. on establishment, and that not more than half the annual loss was due to reasons other than retirement, marriage, or domestic reasons.
Since then, in November last, the salaries were substantially increased and the staffing structure improved following an award of the Industrial Court. The salary of the basic grade is now£420–£485 per annum, and of the highest grade of superintendent radiographer£–675£850. In my view, it is too early to assess the effect of these increases.
Meanwhile, I have asked hospital boards for information about the staffing of radiography departments and the intake of students in order to obtain a full up-to-date picture of the position. The last return has just been received. When I have been able to study the results of this inquiry I shall consider what steps may be necessary to meet the situation it reveals.

Dr. Stross: Does the Minister agree that the situation at present as revealed


by his Answer is completely unsatisfactory? Is he aware that the number of X-ray examinations taking place today is roughly twice as many as compared with those that took place before the National Health Service was instituted? Does he not agree that the present grades of remuneration that he has quoted—for example, the£420 minimum scale—should be£650 if it were evaluated with the minimum grade before the war and brought up to that standard in accordance with the cost of living?
Will the right hon. Gentleman promise to look seriously into this matter and ensure that the long waiting lists, evidence of which is to be found in the hospitals, and the fact that people have to wait weeks before they can be X-rayed, are brought to an end?

Mr. Vosper: The situation is unsatisfactory, but the existence of a gap between demand and supply is not confined to radiography. On the other hand, there has been an increase of no less than 50 per cent. since 1949. As for remuneration, this is not fixed by me but by the Whitley machinery, and in this case was settled by the Industrial Court only six months ago.

Mr. Jennings: While I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the fact that he is investigating an up-to-date assessment of the position, may I ask whether he is not aware that there is a serious wastage of trained personnel in this service, and does he not agree that it is a very serious matter when trained personnel leave this service to take up positions with higher remuneration? Will he take that factor into consideration when assessing the position?

Mr. Vosper: It is true that there is a wastage, and I hope that one of the results of my inquiry may be to determine more closely the reasons for it.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind also the very considerable wastage of all kinds of other professional workers in hospitals, as well as radiographers?

Mr. Vosper: It is true that both the deficiency and the wastage apply to all medical auxiliaries and to many classes of people employed in the hospital service.

Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the position is getting progressively worse, because more and more are leaving to get better paid jobs, which in its turn throws an increased burden on those who remain, so that they leave too?

Mr. Vosper: At the moment, I have no evidence to corroborate what my hon. Friend says, that more and more are leaving; in fact, the numbers in the service are increasing.

Mr. Hastings: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in view of the responsibility involved and the danger of the work in which these people are engaged, with the consequent necessity for very careful training, the salaries they receive are miserable and entirely out of proportion? Can the right hon. Gentleman say when this report which he is proposing to make will be ready, or can he give some estimate? Will he report his conclusions to the House and say whether something more can be done for the radiographers and to increase the number entering the profession and undertaking training?

Mr. Vosper: I do not want to disown responsibility for remuneration, but these salaries were fixed by the Industrial Court only six months ago. It is as yet too early to judge the result of the increase, but most certainly I will inform the House of the result of my inquiry, which should be available in a few weeks' time.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: In view of the increased importance of radiography and the obvious anxiety of those employed in this service, will my right hon. Friend give every possible consideration to this matter?

Mr. Vosper: Yes, Sir. One other factor which the House must bear in mind is that this matter may be affected by the Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Adrian which is investigating radiological hazards. Therefore, the demand in future may not be as great as it is today. But I will certainly do as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests.

Mr. H. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Lewisham doctors have been informed of the shortage of radiology facilities and have been warned that patients cannot be taken or,


at any rate, must be restricted? This is a very serious state of affairs which is worrying the doctors. Can the right hon. Gentleman make any statement about that?

Mr. Vosper: I do not think I can add to my original reply. The inquiry will include relative shortages in various parts of the country. My present information is that London is better off generally than elsewhere.

Mr. Gower: Apart from inadequacy of remuneration, can my right hon. Friend say whether any other circumstances have been brought to his attention which may militate against an improvement in the situation?

Mr. Vosper: There are many factors to be taken into account. The age of entry for training, financial assistance for training and various requirements stipulated by the Society of Radiographers are all factors other than remuneration which affect the position.

Mr. Gibson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the very existence of so many Questions from so many different parts of the country is evidence of great concern about this matter? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to indicate whether any immediate steps are to be taken to increase the training of radiographers so that the increased number of training schools can be fully staffed and can provide more well-trained people for this work later on?

Mr. Vosper: The number of Questions on the Order Paper is, I think, mainly evidence of a fairly highly organised campaign. Questions relating to training have been under discussion for some considerable time, and as soon as the result of my inquiry is complete I hope to enter into further discussions about arrangements for training, which are important in this respect.

Dr. Summerskill: In view of the urgency of this problem and the fact that the training of these girls takes some time, would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is wrong for him to say that he will delay taking action at this stage?

Mr. Vosper: I did not say that. There has always been a deficiency of

radiographers. I do not believe the gap today is very much wider than it was five years ago. In fact, I set this inquiry on foot some ten weeks ago, and it is now nearly completed.

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Health to what extent the present shortage of radiographers in National Health Service hospitals has resulted in overtime working; and if he is satisfied that this will not be deleterious to the health of those concerned.

Mr. Vosper: I regret that the information is not available. Health hazards do not necessarily depend on the number of hours worked, but on the protection arrangements made by hospitals. If evidence is produced that radiographers are suffering excessive exposure, I shall be glad to investigate the matter.

Mr. Hastings: Is the Minister not aware that when people are overworked they are liable to be careless, and that carelessness may react very adversely upon both radiographer and patient? Will he bear that important matter in mind in carrying out the inquiry on which he is at present engaged?

Mr. Vosper: I accept that, but I am quite certain that hospital authorities are conscious of their responsibility in this matter. It may be that my inquiry will enable me to provide further information which I cannot at present give to the hon. Gentleman.

Admissions, Wales

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Health how many people in Wales were waiting to enter hospital, at the latest convenient date; and how many had been waiting for more than six months.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: There were 30,456 and 15,293 on 31st March last.

Mr. Gower: Would my hon. Friend anticipate that there may be some improvement in the position in the foreseeable future?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Yes, Sir; there has been an improvement steadily going on over the last year or two, as my hon. Friend knows.

Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases, Bath

Mr. Pitman: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the premises of the Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases at Bath are in a state of decrepitude and danger by risk of fire; and, in view of the national service and importance of this hospital as a centre for the treatment of rheumatic diseases, what steps he intends to take to expedite the necessary work of reconstruction.

Mr. Vosper: I am aware that this hospital falls short of modern standards, and I am at present examining the proposal of the South Western Regional Hospital Board that the project to restore it should be included in the programme of major building projects which are financed centrally.

Mr. Pitman: I thank the Minister for that reply, but I ask him to urge the national need in serving the whole country upon the Regional Hospital Board whose responsibility is primarily regional.

Mr. Vosper: I have that in mind. Of course, this is not by any means the only hospital which draws its patients from all over the country.

Mr. T. Williams: Is the Minister aware that this particular hospital received donations to the extent of nearly£90,000 to rebuild the hospital before the war, and that it is really more national than regional, being the oldest hospital of its kind in the country dealing exclusively with rheumatism? While we agree with the policy of the right hon. Gentleman's Department for more rheumatic units at all hospitals in the country, does he not agree that there is an absolutely first-class case for this particular hospital, and ought we not to stop bandying it about first from the Ministry of Health to the Regional Hospital Board and then back again?

Mr. Vosper: I do not think that that point is particularly material; the money has to come out of the same pocket, whichever way the financing is done. The difficulty is that priorities have changed since this hospital was first put down for rebuilding and more urgent needs have arisen; but I am doing what I can to meet the right hon. Gentleman's point.

Mentally Defective Children, Sheffield

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Health how many mentally defective children are on the waiting list for admission to residential hospital care in the area of the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Three hundred and fifty-four on 31st December, 1956.

Mr. Janner: is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the position is extremely serious and that there are very sad cases indeed in the homes? Is he aware that as far back as 15th June his Ministry informed a person in Leicester that the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board was aware of the case and that he would be informed by the Board as soon as there was a suitable vacancy; and has he any idea when these cases are likely to be accommodated?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The hon. Member ought to know that there has been a reduction from 402 in the last two years. The Regional Board hopes to provide eighty-two more beds this year and a further 190 beds in the course of the next three years in two major building schemes.

New Hospital, Crawley

Mr. Gough: asked the Minister of Health if he is yet in a position to make a statement about the proposed new hospital at Crawley.

Mr. Vosper: I have not yet received a recommendation from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government following the public inquiry held on 30th April into the choice of a site for the new hospital. When this recommendation is received I hope to make an early decision.

Mr. Gough: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind the extreme anxiety felt by every section of the community in Crawley over the grave delays which have taken place, and will he do everything in his power to expedite the decision of this matter?

Mr. Vosper: I assure my hon. Friend that I am as anxious as he is to get an early decision about this hospital, but he will, of course, understand that the delay has been caused by a clash of local opinion.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS CATERING

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whether he is aware of the crowding in the Strangers' Dining Room at lunch time on Tuesday, 21st May due to hon. Members entertaining seven and eight guests each; and what rules govern the number of guests each hon. Member may bring.

Sir William A. Steward: The maximum number of guests which an hon. Member may entertain in the Strangers' Dining Room is three. Occasionally, three hon. Members collectively invite nine guests. If two of the three hon. Members in whose names the booking has been made at the last moment are delayed or unable to attend, it is the practice of the Department to permit the meal to be served, since the absence of the requisite number of hon. Members is frequently not discovered until the guests are all seated. Two incidents of this nature occurred at lunch time on Tuesday, 21st May, and I can only express my regret to the hon. Member for Goole for any inconvenience he may have been caused.

Mr. Jeger: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for the comprehensive and evasive nature of his reply, may I ask him to direct his attention especially to the

hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) and the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse), both of whom had tables at which, in the one case, were seven guests and, in the other case, were eight guests, with no empty chairs whatsoever for the non-existent other hon. Members? Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that, in future, the rules regarding the entertainment of guests are strictly adhered to on both sides of the House, even when there happens to be a Conservative women's conference taking place?

Sir W. Steward: I can assure the hon. Member that these incidents are in no sense a one-way traffic. The Refreshment Department always draws the attention of any hon. Member or hon. Members booking tables to the rule, and it is hon. Members themselves who cause inconvenience to other hon. Members by breaking it. I really do not think that the Refreshment Department can do other than tell hon. Members what the rules are.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1(Sittings of the House).—[ Heath.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee),considered.

Clause 1.—(POWER TO PROVIDE FOR GUARANTEED PRICES, ETC.)

3.30 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, at the beginning to insert:
Subject to the following provisions of this part of this Act.
This is a paving Amendment to the further Amendments in my name to leave out the latter part of subsection (4) of the Clause and to add a new subsection (6) to Clause 2. These Amendments are an attempt to improve the drafting of the Bill to make quite certain that we carry out the intention of Section 3 (2) of the Agriculture Act.
Subsection (4) of the Clause was intended to embody the substance of that subsection of the Agriculture Act, but as it is drafted it would safeguard only changes made in guaranteed prices. There could conceivably be a change in the basis which would affect the value of the guarantee even though it did not alter the actual guaranteed prices. I am thinking, for instance, of a change in the description of eligible produce. The new wording will make it absolutely certain that the intention and substance of Section 3 (2) of the Agriculture Act are carried out.

Mr. Frederick Willey: We are obliged to the Minister for these Amendments. They improve the drafting of the Bill. I should like to use this occasion to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. As the Clause covers a special review, apprehension might arise from the possible consequences of a special review. Ordinarily, as we have known special reviews, no difficulty will arise, because what has arisen has been substantial increases in the costs of production. From the 1947 Act, however, we see that there is a possibility of a special review if there should be some other special cause.
That is probably nothing more than cautionary draftsmanship, but I should

like the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that there would not be resort to a special review except in such circumstances as resort has been made to special reviews in the past. That is to say, that in spite of this cautionary provision with regard to other special cause, the special price review would not be used to affect the further provisions which have been made in the Bill.

Mr. Amory: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no suggestion in the Bill to vary in any way the use or practice of the special review. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in our recent White Paper we described the new lines on which the special review procedure is to be operated in the future, but that is not in any way affected by the wording of the Clause. The hon. Gentleman can feel quite comfortable. There is no intention to restrict in any way the working of the special review.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 38.—[Mr. Amory.]

Clause 2.—(PROVISION FOR STABILITY OF PARTICULAR GUARANTEES.)

Amendment made: In page 4, line 9, at end insert:
(6) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this section, the power of the Minister to vary a determination made in pursuance of an order under section one of this Act in respect of any produce specified in the First Schedule to this Act, or to vary during a guarantee period an order made under that section in respect of any such produce, shall not be exercised in a manner which, in his opinion, would reduce the amounts payable to the producers of that produce unless—

(a) the reduction is made in pursuance of the conclusions of the Ministers from the annual review last held before the commencement of that period; or
(b) the Ministers are satisfied, in consequence of a special review, that the reduction is expedient in the public interest.—(Mr. Amory.]

Mr. Speaker: The next Amendment is that in the name of the Minister, in Clause 12, page 11, line 9.

Mr. Willey: I notice, Mr. Speaker, that you are not calling my Amendment in page 7, line 1, to leave out Clause 6. I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps I might say that the Amendment was put down purely to elicit a statement concerning the export of livestock. I


fully appreciate, however, that that matter would be outside the purview of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: That is one of the reasons why I did not select the Amendment.

Clause 12.—(GRANTS FOR LONG TERM IMPROVEMENTS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND.)

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I beg to move, in page 11, line 9, after "commencement", to insert "of this Part".
This and the similar Amendment in page 11, line 40, are both paving Amendments in relation to later Amendments in Clause 36, in page 24, line 5, after "commencement", to insert "of Part I" and in page 24, line 21 to leave out from beginning to "shall" in line 22 and to insert:
The period during which orders under subsection (1) of section four of the Agriculture Act, 1947, have effect (being a period which would otherwise expire with the fifth day of August, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven) shall be extended until the commencement of Part I of this Act, and any order in force under that subsection at the commencement of the said Part I".
and in Clause 37, page 24, line 34. after "Act", to insert:
except subsection (3) of section thirty-six".
in regard to the timing of the introduction of the Bill. Presumably, it will be convenient for us to discuss that point at a later stage when we reach Clause 36. I therefore move the Amendment formally.

Mr. Speaker: I do not wish in any way to interfere with the Minister's discretion, but I should have thought that all the Amendments might be discussed together if they are inter-related. The subsequent Amendments can then be moved formally at a later stage when we reach them.

Mr. Thomas Williams: I was about to make the same observation. I agree that these Amendments are closely connected and that one is useless without the other. I thought that this was the right moment when the hon. Gentleman could explain exactly what the ultimate change will involve. In that case, there might be no need for a further lengthy debate later.

Mr. Godber: Certainly, if it is for the convenience of the House and of yourself. Mr. Speaker, I shall be happy to

discuss the various Amendments at this stage; then, they can be dealt with formally later.
The purpose of these paving Amendments to Clause 12 is to make way for the Amendments to Clauses 36 and 37, which are related to the timing of the introduction of the Bill. As at present advised, we anticipate that it will come into force on 1st September this year. There are certain Orders under Section 4 of the 1947 Act which normally falls to be renewed annually by affirmative Resolution.
The Orders at present in force will expire on 5th August this year and we thought that rather than bring in a special Order for the short period between 5th August and 1st September it would be for the convenience of the House to introduce in this way a means of covering that period of three weeks, so that, while the existing Section 4 of the 1947 Act will cease to have effect once the Bill becomes law, we can make quite sure that the intervening period is fully covered.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 11, line 16, at the end to insert:
and the Minister shall give notice of such an application to all persons of whom the Minister has knowledge of having an interest in the land".
Whenever the Minister receives an application from a person or persons interested in a piece of land the right hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to consider all that is stated in it, and those points may be positive or negative. What we asked in Committee, and what we ask now, it that the tenant of any such land for which an application has been made should be made aware of what is submitted in the application if it is made by some third party. We felt that if anybody apart from the tenant makes an application, at least the tenant ought to know what the application is and what points are submitted in it, or submitted to the Minister privately by a third party.
I move the Amendment to afford the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of telling us whether he has considered what was said in Committee upon this matter, if he has had time to consider it, and of saying whatever it is he has to say about it.

Mr. Speaker: I have seen an Amendment handed in by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) on Friday, too late to get on the Notice Paper. So far as I could judge, it was covered by this Amendment. The hon. Member is entitled to address the House upon it, if he so desires, but we cannot now take that other as a separate Amendment.

Mr. W. M. F. Vane: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The purpose of that Amendment of mine was simply to ensure, what may prove for the convenience of everyone in the end as well as being common courtesy, that the owner of the land should be informed. The matter is covered very largely by the Amendment before the House. I realise that there may be cases where this is impossible, but I shall be happy to support this Amendment.

Mr. Amory: I am wholly in sympathy with the objects of this Amendment. I was in sympathy with the Amendment proposed at the earlier stage, and I said at that time that I would look at this matter and consider whether any special provision in the Bill might be required beyond what we had already provided. My conclusion is that it would be best not to make any statutory provision beyond what we have done.
I do not think that the Amendment would help very much. It is really only a declaratory provision, saying that the Minister should consult all those persons of whom he has knowledge. It does not say what steps he should take to find out who are all those who have an interest; it does not impose any sanctions; and the procedure would not seem to be invalidated if the Minister did not do that.
The more I have thought of it the more I have been impressed by what the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said in Committee when he reminded us of the complexities of ownership. I am very anxious that my staff should not find the complexities of this matter beyond their power to cope with expeditiously. There will be circumstances in which those having an interest may be mortgagees or executors or creditors, or survivors who may benefit under a will.
3.45 p.m.
What I should like to do—and I hope that this will be satisfactory to the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane)—is to give an absolutely clear assurance that I accept the purpose of this Amendment and that in operating the Act we shall take every possible step we can to ensure that interested parties are informed. This will apply not only in the case of a straightforward application, where, if there is a landlord and a tenant, we shall see that both the landlord and the tenant are aware of the application which has been made and, if possible, that both are in agreement with it; but also where we receive an application from persons who intend to acquire an interest in the property. Then we shall most certainly see that the present owner is informed.
I hope that that assurance will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley and my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and other hon. Gentlemen who raised this matter. I hope it will satisfy the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton. I hope, moreover, that he will feel as gratified as I am that our final conclusion has led us to look at the matter in the same way he did at the earlier stage.

Colonel Sir Leonard Ropner: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) will accept the assurance that my right hon. Friend has given. I, for one, was in complete sympathy with the underlying idea of the Amendment, but I am satisfied that it would be a mistake to try to give legislative effect to it by attempting to define in a Bill what we want to do. I hope very much that both sides of the House will accept the assurance my right hon. Friend has given.

Mr. T. Williams: I am very ready to accept the right hon. Gentleman's promise to see that administratively our purpose is carried out. We had no doubt at all as to the fairness of the right hon. Gentlemen when he promised to look into the matter, and I am quite happy to know that he not only has looked into the matter but has come down on his own side instead of mine. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: I beg to move, in page 11, line 16 at the end to insert:
(3) An application under this section may be made jointly by persons having interests in land and such an application may be made either by such persons jointly or by a co-operative organisation acting on behalf of such persons.
We had a very good discussion in Committee on this very Amendment. I am rather surprised that the Minister has not himself put down an Amendment to make this provision to which I drew attention, for I did so, I thought, with some clarity. It will be remembered that I was concerned with joint enterprises for co-operative organisations. The Parliamentary Secretary said, I thought, that it might be possible to do something administratively about this matter. I wonder whether, in the meantime, he has had an opportunity of discussing this with the Advisory Committee, which has been set up since the Bill was presented.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill was concerned only with land. After all, a sheep dip has something to do with land. The sheep come off the land. Where there is a community of farmers it is much better that they should share a sheep dip, rather than have individual sheep dips. I think the Amendment important in that it will extend the Clause to enterprises conducted jointly by two or more farmers, and I should be glad to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say about this and to have some assurance from him on the matter.
In Committee, the hon. Gentleman referred me to the interpretation Clause. I am not a lawyer, and I should like to know whether he still sticks to that view of interpretation he held then. If he does stick to that interpretation, and can assure me that it covers my Amendment, I shall have the utmost pleasure in withdrawing the Amendment.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Godber: The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) moved an Amendment in Committee on which we had a long discussion. I am sorry that I was not able to satisfy him at that time. On the question of interpretation, the word "person" includes "persons." Therefore, for the purposes of any application, I do not think that there is any need to have an Amendment, in that a

co-operative organisation could apply in respect of land in which it has an interest. The point that I was trying to make, in my words referring to land, was that we have to consider these buildings or sheep dips or whatever they might be in relation to the land that they serve.
There is nothing whatever to prevent a landlord from providing a communal sheep dip or some other building to serve a number of holdings within his ownership. We should know then that there would be continuity and no likelihood of wastage, but where more than one owner-occupier agrees to provide something for the convenience and use of more than one there is no guarantee of continuity.
A man might sell up and go away and there might then be a building designed to serve a certain area of land for which the need no longer existed. Public money is involved here and there must be some safeguard against that kind of thing happening. We say, "related to land" because we want it related to land continuing in one tenancy, or at least in one ownership, so that we can be convinced of a continuing need.
This comes within the test of the prudent landlord in the Bill, because a prudent landlord would not provide equipment to serve land over which he had no control. One might well have a white elephant left in relation to one part of the land. That is the danger. We would accept fully the justification of the Amendment where land is in one ownership. Where it is not, we do not feel that we can accept the Amendment; and where it is in one ownership there is no need for the Amendment. I am sorry to be discouraging, but it is a fundamental point on which it would be difficult for us to find any means of meeting the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor. The points made in Committee about roads and bridges were right, but they, in the very nature of things, are available to more than one farmer as a matter of permanence. We judge the matter on that basis and it is on that basis we feel that the Amendment falls down.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: Will my hon. Friend deal with a point which I raised in Committee? We expect that there will be legislation in future making common land cultivatable. If commoners agree to cultivate a common, can they go in for a scheme to


provide a sheep dip or a building, just as the ordinary landowner can do, or will they be outside this grant just as they are outside the grant for marginal land? A body of commoners should have protection so that they would be entitled to secure a grant just like anybody else.

Mr. Sidney Dye: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said that this is a matter of fundamental importance and he has laid down a principle that where it is a question of land ownership the landlord who has a number of tenants comes within the provisions of the Bill and should be entitled to a grant for the benefit of his tenants, but a group of small occupying owners must be treated differently. The hon. Gentleman says it is a matter of fundamental importance that these small occupying owners shall not be able to join together in a co-operative scheme for the purpose of obtaining equipment that can be jointly used by them.
Will the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend go to Herefordshire, Wales, or Norfolk to say that a Conservative Government are not in favour of owner-occupation? Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that owner-occupiers will be differentiated against under the Bill, merely because they are small owner-occupiers, but that if they choose to sell their land to a big landowner or to a big company in London, who will have no more interest in the land than in what they will get out of it financially, they will be entitled to a grant? That does not sound good enough to me.
What will the head office of the Conservative Party be able to write in the leaflets which it will distribute in their thousands about the Bill? I have a copy of one such leaflet. Will the head office now write a special leaflet which will say to owner-occupiers, "The Tory Government look upon you with distrust. They cannot trust you because if you make a bargain one of you might break from it and leave the land and someone of similar inclination will not take it up."?
The hon. Gentleman is saying that he cannot trust the small owner-occupier, who has put his life savings in his land, because he might break the bargain, but the hon. Gentleman really means that the Government might break these owner-

occupiers in the next few years and the scheme would fall down. He does not mean that the honest people in Mid-Wales and other parts of the country cannot be trusted. He means that he has no faith in the Government's ability to carry out an agriculture policy that will enable these people to borrow money for a scheme like this and make the scheme pay, and that there will be bankruptcies and the like. That is not a good enough answer to give to hon. Members. The Government are discriminating against the small man, in favour of the big man whom they want to see as their principal partner in agriculture.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: I support the Amendment, but not entirely for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye). I understood the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to be basing his argument on the contention that the Government were prepared to approve a scheme advanced by a landlord which covered two or more tenancies, but were not prepared to approve a scheme which involved two or more owner-occupiers. They claim that if there is a scheme involving two owner-occupiers and there is a change in one owner-occupation it might work detrimentally to the whole basis of Clause 12. That applies equally in the ease of a landlord who obtains approval to a scheme relating to two separate tenancies, because there is nothing to prevent a landlord from disposing of one tenancy and thus bringing about precisely the same position as if the scheme had been put forward by two separate owner-occupiers.
4.0 p.m.
It may well be that, to approve a scheme put forward by more than one owner-occupier, there would have to be a safeguard—for example, in the case of sheep dipping facilities—that they should be in joint ownership. I fail to see, however, that it is impossible to make arrangements to give these advantages to owner-occupiers who wish to put forward a scheme, just as it is intended to give advantages to a landlord who wants to put forward a scheme in respect of separate tenancies.

Mr. A. E. Oram: During the Committee stage, I listened to the arguments advanced by the Joint


Parliamentary Secretary, and I was as unimpressed on that occasion as I am today. I wonder why the Government take such a dismal and pessimistic view of the future of co-operative organisations? Why should it be argued that the weakness of this proposal is that if we give a co-operative organisation this right it may disintegrate subsequently?
I recall that recently the Minister attended a dinner to celebrate the inauguration of an organisation which seeks to encourage the growth of cooperative organisations among farmers. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman said some kindly things about them. This Amendment gives him an opportunity to translate some of his kindly wishes into practical legislation, and I am surprised that he is not seizing this opportunity with both hands.
I find the argument against accepting the Amendment inconclusive. The thing to do, by this and other methods, is to give co-operative organisations of farmers every encouragement, to give them practical jobs to do. and to give them legal rights, as this Bill would do. That would make their organisation more secure and practical, and it would not lead to the insecure future which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary appeared to forecast for them.

Mr. Vane: Although I do not go as far as either of the two hon. Gentlemen opposite, because I do not think that this is a political issue or that this Bill is intended to provide equipment for farmers' trading organisations of a cooperative nature, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman has in mind and of one of which or more many of us are members. I think it is intended to provide fixed equipment for agricultural land.
It may be that the Amendment goes wider than one which the Minister could accept. I cannot imagine that there will be many cases where several farmers owning neighbouring land will want to get together to ask for grant aid for a building which might serve them all. However, there may be cases, particularly concerning roads and bridges, where this might be practicable. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will say that he will look at this again before the Bill comes back to us from another place, to make sure that such cases are not ruled out.
I do not think we can press for farmers' trading organisations to be included, but I can see rare cases of small farmers in a group who might want this benefit and it would be a pity if they were ruled out.

Mr. Willey: May I join with my hon. Friends and with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) in pressing this Amendment on the Government? I appreciate the logic of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply, but I do not think it is adequate. When he talked about fundamental importance I at once smelled a doctrinaire approach, because when one talks about fundamental importance it is bolstering up the case too much.
I have said that I can appreciate that approach and the reference to the prudent landlord, but I cannot see why we cannot envisage circumstances in which one should not look to the prudent landlords. The Parliamentary Secretary has anticipated that to some degree, because he said he would allow that this would be justifiable in the case of common ownership of different holdings. But, of course, he cannot guarantee that those different holdings will remain in the common ownership, so that he at once said there was a possibility of an exception to his approach on the grounds of fundamental principle. I point that out because the hon. Gentleman is conceding that in some circumstances he envisages State aid being given.
I share the view of some of my hon. Friends that we should seek to encourage co-operative enterprise amongst farmers. The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that last year I said a good deal about recommissioned mills. I noticed the suggestion made recently that this is a matter on which there should be common enterprise; that facilities could be provided on co-operative grounds where they could not be provided individually.
I should have thought the same approach could be made towards some farm building. Putting it no higher than that, I hope that the Government will look at this point again, and say that this is not a matter upon which they should draw lines on the grounds of fundamental doctrine, but that it is a matter of common sense. There is no difference between the two sides of the House on


the encouragement of co-operative enterprise and this would seem to be the occasion for providing for it.
I hope, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary will go beyond saying that he would allow a co-operative organisation to make an application on behalf of an individual, and will envisage the possibility of farmers collectively providing some capital building, so that it would be wise to provide in the Bill a subsection which will allow the Minister to do so.

Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) was worried about the use of the words "fundamental importance". I am sorry about that. I was trying to use them in connection with my interpretation of this Bill, which is that all these improvements must be related to agricultural land and that one must see continuity. That is the fundamental point, and I am sorry if my use of those words disturbed the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about the need for a continued common ownership. If there were a continued common ownership then the scheme would come within the Bill. If there were divided ownership, he wanted it to be brought in. That might be possible in certain cases, such as those concerning roads and bridges, where there is a clear link and where undoubtedly there is a continuing permanence. In regard to anything else, while we could administratively perhaps agree that a scheme qualified, it could only be where we had a reasonable guarantee of a continuing demand. For instance, perhaps an agreement could be made between adjoining owners, enabling a building to be erected, which would be for a long enough period of years to make sure that the money was not wasted. That is all we are trying to do.
As I understood the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins), he was thinking in terms of a considerable number of smallholders, where it would be somewhat difficult to get such an undertaking and guarantee. That was why, perhaps, I was less helpful to him than he thought I should have been. It was because I could not see how we could get that continuity which is so necessary if the risk of wastage and failure is to be eliminated.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) saw all sorts of dangers and difficulties in what we are doing and thought that all that we wanted to do was to get back to the big landlord. I can assure him that it is not any part of our intention in the Bill to try to destroy the existing arrangements of owner-occupiers, and I would remind him that most of the owner-occupiers are very well able to put up schemes of their own and do not wish to amalgamate with others.
In the main, I should have thought that that would have been the case. The owner-occupier usually wants to provide for his own particular holding and he is fully covered and able to do so. As I saw it, only marginal cases were included in the Amendment and certainly not the sort of thing that the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West seemed to visualise.
The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) referred to the possibility of a sheep dip under joint ownership. It could well be that a sheep dip made on the juncture of two holdings could, if a satisfactory arrangement could be arrived at for some continuity, come within the terms. Administratively, we might be able to do that. But I am advised that we do not need the powers of the Amendment to enable us to do that, if we could be sure that it would come under the test of what a prudent landlord would provide. I think that a considerable number of things which hon. Members want covered could come within the terms; but I do not think that it would be wise to widen the scope beyond what we have already done.
I hope that in the light of my further remarks, the hon. Gentleman may be more satisfied and feel that while we are not able to give him all that he desires, perhaps administratively we can go some part of the way, provided that we can be sure of the long-term continuity of use. I must not say that this is the "fundamental" basis or the hon. Gentleman will get worried, but it is the basis on which we see it. If we can be sure that public money will not be wasted in this way, I think that we shall be meeting the wishes of the House.

Mr. T. Williams: Before we come to a conclusion on the Amendment I should like to make one very brief submission.
The Amendment reads:
An application under this section may be made jointly by persons…or by a co-operative organisation…
All that means is that an application may be made. It does not, of course, imply that an application will be approved. If I understand the Parliamentary Secretary aright. he does not want to approve a joint scheme where disagreement among neighbours may arise and thus have white elephants left about all over the country. I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. But if he will look at the Second Schedule he will see that among the improvements that can be made, paragraph 2 states:
Provision of means of sewage disposal other than from dwelling houses.
It is quite conceivable that a joint scheme for a sewerage undertaking could be applied for and obviously that would be a permanent institution once a joint scheme had been prepared. I am sure that he will agree that decent, respectable sewerage undertakings are quite good things.
4.15 p.m.
Paragraph 3 states:
making and improvement of roads, fords and bridges.
Two paragraphs include the sort of undertakings which owners or adjoining tenants might very well agree comply with Clause 12 (3, c)—those that a prudent landlord would undertake.
It is clear that unless the joint owners felt that it would be worth the expenditure of the Government grant plus 66 per cent. found between the applicants, they would not apply for schemes even for roads, fords or bridges. Paragraph 4 states:
Provision or laying-on of electric light or power to farms for agricultural purposes.
Clearly, the joint owners would feel that this was a scheme which would obviously become a permanent one. Once the electricity was laid on to the farms for agricultural purposes it would be permanent. It could not ultimately be a white elephant. It would be serving two or three farms if an application were made for a grant. Therefore, under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 all these items would quite clearly become permanent and would not be white elephants.
Since the Amendment only asks that an application may be made jointly by

persons instead of a person, or by cooperative organisations acting on behalf of persons, I do not see how the Government could be let down or would be wasting money so long as the joint applications were for such items as those I have mentioned which are embodied in the Second Schedule. They could either be approved or rejected, because the Minister has power to approve or reject. If the hon. Gentleman cannot at this moment accept the theory I am now advancing, I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will feel that there is some substance in the case and that it is well worth his looking at it again.

Mr. Godber: After such a persuasive speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) it is very difficult to resist what he says. But I am advised that it would not be necessary to insert these words to enable part of what he wants to be done. As regards the three items in the Second Schedule, I have instanced roads and bridges and the others fall into exactly the same category, except that in some of these items, electricity supply, for instance, it may be that while a scheme is approved as a whole to supply electricity to a number of farms each individual would prefer to deal with his part separately.

Mr. T. Williams: Then they would not put in a joint application.

Mr. Godber: That is my point; it does not arise. Where it does arise we should be able to cover it under the Bill as it stands and, therefore, there would be no need to bring in this Amendment. Naturally, we will look at this matter again in the light of what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I do not think that there is any need to make any change to do what he and the Government want to do.
In reply to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin)—and I apologise to him for not replying when I spoke earlier—who asked me a specific point about common land, it could well be that there might be some case, but I think that we must await the Report of the Royal Commission on Common Land. Undoubtedly, if there are recommendations made there legislation relating to them will be required. I think


that it would be wiser to leave it to that time. Any proposals for dealing with common land should, I think, come within its own separate legislation, and it is for that reason that I cannot accede to hon. Gentlemen's wishes in the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 11, line 40, after "commencement", insert "of this Part".—[Mr. Amory.]

Clause 13. —(AMOUNT AND PAYMENT OF GRANTS UNDER S. 12.)

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, in page 12, line 5, at the end to insert:
(2) Where an improvement is carried out wholly or mainly by an applicant with his own labour the cost of the improvement for the purpose of calculating any grant shall be the cost of the materials plus thirty per cent. or such lesser proportion as together with the cost of any paid labour will amount to thirty per cent.
The Amendment follows very closely the lines of one which we discussed during Committee, which, I think I can fairly say, attracted support from both sides of the Committee and, in the words of the Minister:
… more than a sneaking sympathy …because I realise full well in many cases it is the most economical thing for the small farmer to use his own labour for part of the scheme…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 7th May, 1957; c. 276.]
With that encouragement during the Committee stage, I feel that the Minister ought to be able to say that he accepts the slightly amended form of the Amendment on this occasion.
I realise that there are some difficulties in a calculation of this sort, but I think it would be wrong to over-estimate them, and the formula which I suggest meets most of them. I should also like the House to remember that a large number of applications for help under the Measure will come from very small farmers who, under the Bill as it is now drafted, will not get any help in respect of the large proportion of the cost which would represent their own physical labour.
My right hon. Friend has gone some way to meet the point by adopting a system known as "standard charges". I can understand that that system might very well meet a number of cases where the improvement consisted of a com-

pletely new building—a dutch barn, or a cowshed—but a large number of schemes will not include a complete new building but will consist of reconstructing old farm buildings and making a very good job of them. In circumstances such as these, it is extremely difficult to work out a system of standard charges which will really provide any material contribution to the small farmer.
I feel that the criticism of the Amendment reflects too bureaucratic an approach to the problem. Other formulae have been put forward, and all that I have seen have included an element of estimating the cost of a man's work. The moment one starts estimating, one also provides an opportunity for arguing. My form of words meets the difficulty entirely by avoiding any estimating. The Amendment bases the calculation of the work for the purposes of grant on the cost of the materials, which I think is as good a way as can be devised.
In his sympathetic reply to the discussion on the earlier Amendment, the Minister showed that cases could arise where a 50 per cent. addition might be over-generous. I said in my speech introducing that Amendment that I was not attempting in this case to arrive at the exact cost but was simply trying to he fair to both sides while none the less giving some recognition to the man who does the work with his own hand. I have now reassessed the percentage addition which I think it is fair to charge.
Some hon. Members may think that this is just a way of wasting money. There are, of course, plenty of ways of wasting money under a scheme of this sort. On the contrary, however, I believe that it will save money. The small farmer resents, rightly, that under many schemes the cost of his own work, which is a substantial part of the total cost, is excluded, and he will put the job out to a local builder. The local builder in country districts may have long distances to travel, and so the work entails travelling time for the builder's men, and there is, in addition, the builder's profit also to be taken into account. So, far from wasting money, the scheme I have in mind will save public money.
I was glad that in his reply in Committee the Minister accepted the principle and the object that I had in mind.
Because of certain criticisms of the percentage figure which I had suggested, I said that I wished to withdraw the Amendment and would try to meet the Minister between then and the Report stage and would like to go carefully into the whole system of standard charges to see whether the Minister could convince me, as I think he hoped to do, that he really did thereby meet my point.
As my right hon. Friend was away last weekend, I met the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. My hon. Friend could not add a single jot or tittle of information to what the Minister told us in Committee. I hoped—I do not think it was asking too much—that I should be shown some technical scheme which would meet the objections which I had put forward not just as a Member of Parliament representing many of these people but as someone who has had a surveyor's training and can, therefore, appreciate the difficulties. I was not shown a single piece of evidence which helped to convince me that the Government would be able to meet most of the cases with which hon. Members on both sides of the House have such sympathy.
Therefore. I felt that 1 had no alternative but to table an Amendment in broadly the same terms as the original one but reducing the percentage. I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to go into much more detail today—a great deal more detail if he expects me to adopt the same lenient and generous attitude towards this Amendment as I did towards my Amendment in Committee.

Mr. Edward du Cann: I beg to second the Amendment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) said, in ably moving the Amendment, the Minister amply demonstrated in Committee—I was not a member of it—his sympathy and good will towards the point covered by the Amendment. The Minister went further than my hon. Friend has indicated, for he said that in the past he had argued the point himself. We should all appreciate it very much if this afternoon my right hon. Friend felt himself able to accept his own arguments, for we feel these arguments as strongly as he must have felt them when he put them forward.
It would be unfair to exclude the farmer's own work from qualifying for a grant in the context of the Bill. The present bar bears especially heavily upon small farmers undertaking small schemes. That is very hard and a great pity. If a farmer is reimbursed for the cost of his workers' wages, and if he is to be reimbursed for the cost of employing even members of his own family, surely it is illogical for him to be cut out. I cannot see why this should be so. As my hon. Friend has said, there are no arguments other than convention against including the costs of the farmer's own work.
One sometimes hears it suggested that if one reimburses the farmer it will do contractors out of work. I do not believe that. My experience of contractors is that they are rubbing their hands with glee waiting for the Bill to become an Act, for it is believed that they will then have plenty of work to do.
Sometimes the argument about demarcation is used, it being suggested that it is wrong to encourage the farmer to do work which should be done by members of other trades. I do not believe that workers in the country will complain, for they know how skilful farmers are in doing their own work.
If the Amendment is accepted, public money will be saved, and costs will be cut from the point of view of both the taxpayers and the farmers. The method suggested by my hon. Friend is both simple and efficient. I cannot find anything in the Bill which should preclude the reimbursement of a farmer for his own work. Indeed, Clause 13 (4) says that
The grant shall be payable to the person or persons by whom…the work…is done…
That is almost an invitation to reimburse the farmer for his own work. All that is against it is merely convention or the Treasury mentality, thinking only of maintenance schemes in respect of house decoration and matters of that sort. What we are considering here is entirely different.
If my right hon. Friend requires practical evidence of the feelings of farmers on the subject, I can tell him that on several occasions when I have discussed the Bill with members of my local branches of the National Farmers' Union—the subject has been discussed at county level


also—and with farmers who do not belong to the N.F.U., they have all said more or less the same thing. In effect, they say, "We think this is a good Bill, and we can find little improvement to suggest to it. But we should like to be reimbursed in respect of our own work. We think that only fair."
4.30 p.m.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will feel able to agree to this Amendment, but, if not, I suggest as an alternative, since it is only a question of his decision, that he should try and see what happens during an experimental period in which farmers could be reimbursed for their own work. It is a matter of trust and I do not believe that the farmers would let him down. In time, my right hon. Friend might find it a principle which could be extended to other agricultural legislation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before we proceed further with this discussion I would say that I have been listening to the arguments advanced by the two hon. Members and I am wondering whether, were this Amendment accepted, it would involve a public charge beyond the charge provided for by the Bill in the form in which it left the Committee. I am not quite sure whether that is the case, and I should like someone with knowledge of the technicalities of the financial arrangements to advise me.

Mr. Vane: I was at pains to include in my short speech—my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) used almost the same words—the statement that the object of this Amendment is, in fact, to save public money.

Mr. Speaker: It was that which put me on inquiry.

Mr. Godber: It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that the acceptance of this Amendment would not impose any additional charge, because the effect would be to substitute one expenditure in place of another—the labour of the farmer in place of the labour of the hired contractor. In theory, that would probably be a lower charge, so that rather than increasing the charge it would result in a lesser charge.

Mr. Speaker: I must accept what the Minister says about the effect of this Amendment and, therefore, I withdraw any expression of doubt I had about

whether the Amendment is in order or not. Had the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) finished his speech in seconding the Amendment?

Mr. du Cann: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. I had finished.

Mr. Bowen: I hope that the Minister will be persuaded by the pleas which have been made to him. We appreciate what he has done regarding the standard charges. There was talk about an elaborate schedule of standard charges during the Committee stage proceedings, but however elaborate that schedule may be it will not cover many circumstances which the supporters of this Amendment have in mind.
I do not wish to repeat the arguments advanced in favour of this Amendment, but I should like to add one. Reference has been made to the fact that in many instances the acceptance of an Amendment of this kind, involving an arrangement whereby a farmer's own work could be credited, might well save money to the Treasury. It is not only a question of saving money, but also of getting the work done. Certainly, in many parts of my constituency, there is great difficulty in getting a local builder or contractor to undertake work on inaccessible farms. Even though he does so, his charges must be high.
It would appear to me that the best prospect of getting the work done is to adopt either this Amendment, or something of the same nature, and to give every encouragement to the farmer to undertake the work himself.

Mr. Watkins: I wish to support the Amendment. I suggest to the Minister that he is not obliged to apply this arrangement to every scheme. Surely the county agricultural executive committees would be able to advise him about a scheme where the farmer wished to use his own labour, and whether that would be an advantage or whether the farmer was seeking to exploit the situation.
No one, for example, could construct permanent fencing better than the farmer. Although experts might be engaged to do building work and improvement to buildings, it does not follow that they are expert in the construction of permanent fences. Therefore, it would be an advantage for the country generally were that


kind of work done by the farmer, especially if he was an expert in the erection of fences and in hedging and such similar things. The same argument might be applied to the construction of farm roads.
The Minister should not regard this matter through the eyes of the Treasury. Cannot he, for a change, look: at it from the practical side, from the point of view of a Minister who wishes to help these applicants? If the right hon. Gentleman can visualise something being achieved in this matter, he may feel inclined to extend the arrangement to livestock rearing and hill farming legislation.

Sir L. Ropner: I am sure that hon. Members have listened with interest to the persuasive speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) and my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Du Cann). I think it would be impossible for the Minister to accept the final suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton regarding a trial period. This is either a good Amendment or a bad one, and I shall be interested to hear what my right hon. Friend has to say about it.
I do not know whether the formula suggested in the Amendment is a good one. I was not a member of the Standing Committee in which this question was discussed. But if the formula is not a good one, and if that be the only reason why my right hon. Friend feels inclined to turn down the Amendment, I think it is up to the Ministry to think of a better one and to prepare an Amendment which will fulfil this object.
I wish to do something more to help the small farmers. I agree that this Bill will be welcomed by the farming community as a whole, both the farmers and the farm workers. It is a good Bill. But those who represent agricultural constituencies are still a little apprehensive about the future of the small farmer. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider this really deserving class of agriculturist.

Mr. Percy Wells: I support the Amendment, but there is one point I wish to put to the Minister. We are considering agricultural workers undertaking work other than the work upon which they are usually engaged, as they might be called on to do under the terms of this Amendment. I wish to know whether the Minister is prepared

to give an undertaking about the rate of wage to be paid.

Mr. Vane: The Amendment refers simply to unpaid labour. Normal farm labour is paid labour and, therefore, does not come within the terms of the Amendment, except as a secondary calculation.

Mr. Wells: As I see the Amendment, it would cover anyone who was employed by the farmer upon direct labour in connection with these improvements. If that is not so, my objection does not arise. To the extent that straightforward work required on a farm from time to time is usually performed by agricultural workers and by farmers and members of their families. I am fully in agreement with the Amendment.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Not only do we want to help the small farmer, we want to make it as easy as possible for him to get the work done as cheaply as possible. Whatever system of standard charges the Minister may bring forward for certain specific jobs there will be more complicated jobs, such as the renovation of a building, which cannot be specified in terms of standard tasks, such as laying so many square yards of concrete or making up a road so many yards long. The modification of a pig-sty would be extremely difficult to standardise and price in terms of labour unless very elaborate time sheets were kept.
On a biggish farm, employing a farm carpenter, much work is done without calling in an outside builder, and that work will always he done much more cheaply, for the reasons already mentioned, one of which is that no one has to travel to the job. The large farmer has clerical facilities behind him which enable him, if necessary, to provide detailed price schedules, but the small farmer cannot afford to do this, and any form of clerical work is rather an imposition.
One fact that emerges about the big farm is that on all these jobs the ratio of labour to raw materials used is considerably higher than 30 per cent. In fact, it is between 60 per cent. and 100 per cent. Therefore, the 30 per cent. suggested would he very much on the low side. On the other hand, it would mean that the small farmer who did


his own work would know that he would get something, even if he did not attempt to keep a detailed time sheet, and if he did he might be able to get even more.
One other important point.is that if the small man can use his own labour he can do so when he has nothing else to do. He can carry out these tasks at the back end of the year, as and when he is free from other tasks on the farm. He can use every hour profitably. He cannot do it so easily if he has to keep an elaborate documentation, however, and I hope that the Minister will consider the Amendment favourably as a way of providing the small man with an alternative means of procedure, which would seem to save public money and would undoubtedly help him.

Mr. James Lindsay: I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment, or something in similar terms. Like other hon. Members, I support it because it provides a means of helping the small farmer. I take it that it is now generally agreed that small farmers are in need of special help. The difficulty arises in defining what is a small farmer. I do not think that the size of a holding is a sufficient definition. Many farmers in a small way of business have a great area of rough land, and other farms, although small, are intensively cultivated and well capitalised. The idea of letting the farmer charge for his own labour seems to me to provide a way of helping him without any differentiation, because no definition is required as to the types of farmers who can get help under the Clause.
All farmers could benefit by this provision, but, in particular, the small farmer could take advantage of it. I very much hope that with a view to helping the small farmer— of whom there are many in the West Country—my right hon. Friend will be able to accept the Amendment or one like it.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Amory: I wish I could make this concession to the view expressed so persuasively by many of my hon. Friends, who are in very close touch with farming. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) is not only a very tenacious Member, but one with a great deal of technical knowledge of

this subject. Therefore, his view carries weight. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) reminded me—I hoped that he would not—of a violent speech which I made some years ago upon this subject, when I took a view different from that which I am taking today. I can only say that I suppose that as one grows older and gets nearer the grave one acquires a greater measure of wisdom.
The question of making the farmer's own work eligible in this simple form goes a good deal wider than the Amendment. If we were to make the farmer's own work directly eligible for a grant we should be departing from a definition of expenditure which has always been applied in the past, not only in agriculture but in a good many other spheres. It would have very wide repercussions.
I think that hon. Members are clear about this, but I want to make sure. If a farmer decides that the cheapest way of getting the work done is to do part of the job with his own hands that does not invalidate the whole scheme for grant. It only means that the grant that we pay will be limited to the remainder of the work—that is, the materials and the cost of the part of the work which is carried out with paid labour. I want to make it quite clear that if the labour that he employs is that of his family—his own sons, if they are not partners, and are paid wages —it would be eligible for the purposes of the grant.
The Amendment is the same as that which my hon. Friend proposed in Committee, except that he has substituted:
cost of materials plus 30 per cent.
for
cost of materials plus 50 per cent.
I am afraid that the reason why I cannot find the Amendment acceptable is the same as that which I gave in Committee, namely, that after very careful examination we have come to the conclusion that the cost of materials is really not an equitable basis for the calculation of the part of the cost which consists of work done.
I think that our attitude is logical. I thought that that would make a favourable impression upon the House, until the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said that he did not think


that it was necessarily enough to have a logical reason; it might be logical, but not adequate. I agree with him in general, but I believe that here our view is the only one which can be held. The cost of materials used in a job has really no fixed relation to the cost of the work done apart from materials. In the case of repairs to roads, or repairs to some types of fences, the cost of materials might be quite a high proportion of the total cost of the job.
When we come to work like reclamation of land or the clearing away of obstructions there might be practically no element representing the cost of materials. I may be told, "All we are doing is to give the occupier an option" but I still do not believe that this would give a basis for arriving at a fair answer.
I am advised that the effect of the Amendment might be to do what I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland does not want, that is, to exclude to some extent the cost of hired labour used in the scheme. I do not try to argue that the views that my hon. Friends have pressed me to accept would result in wasting money. I know that in some cases work done by the occupier is the cheapest way of getting the job done, but the scope for the occupier's own labour is generally in jobs that fall within the skills that an occupier might be expected to have.
It was with that point in mind that we tried to think of some way of meeting the views that have been expressed. We have concluded that the best contribution we could make would be to apply the principle of standard costs wherever we can. We cannot apply the standard costs principle to all the cases that hon. Members have mentioned but it will meet some of them. The kind of job that might well be met by standard costs would be the preparation of a site for subsequent building, the laying down of concrete, road making, fence and gate making, reclamation and clearing work, claying and marling.
I do not say that we cannot do anything when it comes to building. I think we can, in the erection of the simplest kinds of building and shed. We cannot he specific there yet. It is a point on which we are asking the Advisory Committee, which I have set up under the chairmanship of Lord St. Aldwyn, to look

at carefully and to consider whether it can find certain categories of building and erection work that we can bring within the scope of standard costs.
We have tried this principle of standard costs experimentally in the recent Agriculture (Silo Subsidies) Act. We did it with fear and trembling because we were not quite sure how it would work out. So far, it seems to be giving satisfaction to the applicants and to us. With that experience we may be able to extend the use of these standard costs. I shall not pretend that this will completely meet the wishes that hon. Gentlemen have put forward so persuasively; I am sure that it will not, but I ask the House to accept that we have given a tremendous lot of thought to this question.
I know it is important for the small farmer, and all of us are trying to find ways and means of giving our help and making it of value to the small occupier. Having considered all these matters, with a strong bias to finding a way to help as hon. Gentlemen have pressed me to, we have concluded that the best way to make progress on that front is by the introduction and development, as best we can, of the principle of standard costs.
I hope that after that explanation the House will realise that we have given a lot of care to this matter. We have a lot of sympathy with the idea behind the Amendment and we have done our best to find ways of meeting the wishes of hon. Gentlemen who have spoken.

Mr. T. Williams: I regret having to sit here and listen to the right hon. Member admitting that I was right in 1946 and 1951. Wisdom lingers in certain quarters; we all recognise that. Perhaps I am slightly wiser than I was yesterday, if I have learned anything in the meantime.
I have never seen Government supporters so united since July, 1956. It seems regrettable that the right hon. Gentleman could not have been more forthcoming, in view of their logical pleas this afternoon, but the right hon. Gentleman has behind him at least ten years' experience of the Hill Farming Act. If the experience of the administration of that Act enables the right hon. Gentleman to help hill farmers in particular I should not feel very happy going into the Division Lobby with Government supporters, if they have the courage to follow their


Amendment, which I doubt, unless I could feel that, in the light of experience since 1946, it would be administratively possible as well as fair to the landowner, to the tenant and to the Government, to allow grants to be made direct for what is called the farmers "individual" work.
I did not think it was possible, in 1946, in view of all the advice I received, and by 1951, after five years' experience, we still did not think it was possible. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I felt very sympathetic towards the small farmers and I should much have liked to do it. I recognise that they constitute two-thirds of the whole and that anything we can do to help them in this or in any other direction we ought to do.
I am sorry, therefore, to have to oppose the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins). I feel today as I did in 1946, on the basis of the advice then given to me, that this proposal would lead to all sorts of abuse. We ought always to avoid that possibility where Government grants are made available. I cannot help feeling that the right hon. Gentleman's conclusion is right.
If he can find ways and means, through his St. Aldwyn Committee, of loosening up this matter in any shape or form and finding a solution which is abuse-free, the right hon. Gentleman will have a very ready welcome from these benches. We shall want the improvement to be satisfactory and the calculation of the farmer's work to be established without employing 10.000 more inspectors to see how much the farmer has done or has not done and whether his time sheet is correct or incorrect. Anything that can be done which is administratively possible and practical we would be very ready and willing to help.

Mr. Baldwin: I want to be clear on one point. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that the proposal in the Amendment would lead to abuse if it related to the farmer's own labour. Why is no abuse possible if it relates to the farmer's sons?

Mr. Williams: Because in all probability the farmer's sons would be working for the contractor who had taken on the job. That is a very different proposition. If a contract is let for an

improvement scheme which may involve two, three, or up to six of the items in the Second Schedule, the contractor may agree to employ for wages the sons of the farmer.
There is nothing that I can find in the Bill that would prevent the contractor from so doing. If a contract is made, and the local committee which is administering it or the right hon. Gentleman's officials are satisfied that the terms of the contract are fair to the Government, to the owner and tenant, is there anything in the Bill to prevent the contractor from employing the farmer at X wages? I cannot find anything. It seems to me that the desire of all those who support the Amendment could be met. If the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) can point out anything in the Bill which would prevent a contractor who has taken a contract to effect a desired improvement from employing who he likes to do the physical work, I will listen to him.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Vane: This is not what is in the Bill; it is the facts of life. On many small farms where work is done there will be no contract at all. I anticipate that the work will be done by the farmer's paid labour and perhaps an odd job man from the village. Often there is not a contract. That is why my Amendment has some force.

Mr. Williams: Many of the small farmers whom we want to help will not employ any paid labour. All the work may be done by the farmer and his family. There is nothing to prevent the contractor from employing the son of the farmer if he wants to, for wages agreed between the two, and the work can be undertaken.
I do not want to detain the Committee, but I must say that I am sorry to hear such magnificent unanimity on the benches opposite for once in the last ten months, and I am equally sorry to learn that the Minister cannot help them.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: I had not intended to intervene, but I feel that there was some force in the Minister's argument when he said that the effect of the Amendment would be to rule out those who did work for the farmer. I was prepared to leave the matter at that until I heard what the


right hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) had to say.
This seems to me the most outrageous example of the Executive, past and present, ganging up against the Legislature. Before members of the Executive come here and, with unctuous solemnity, proceed to address us on the subject of the impossibility of doing this or that, they should remember—those who are members of the Executive today, those who have been and those who hope to be —that if the Executive had not abused every single tax they have ever raised in the past, probably this Bill would be unnecessary.
One of the reasons that this capital has to be expended on our farms today is that year after year the Executive have consistently punished the thrifty person through death duties, and then spent those duties which were capital as though they were income, with the result that we have had a steady deterioration in the value of money and we now find ourselves in a state where what was worth£l ten years ago is now worth only 10s.
I suggest that before anybody who has sat on the Front Benches comes here and says that this, that or the other is impossible, he had better look to his own conduct in the past and make quite certain that he has been such a meticulous attender to detail and correctitude—

Mr. P. Wells: To which Amendment is the hon. and gallant Gentleman speaking?

Major Legge-Bourke: Because the Amendment would not have the effect that my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) desires, it would be a pity to divide on it.

Mr. Paget: Now who is ganging up?

Major Legge-Bourke: The suggestion of the right hon. Member for Don Valley seems to me to be a legislative reductio ad absurdum. Here is a former Minister of Agriculture, speaking on the subject of agriculture for his party, saying that although it is assumed that the farmer's own work cannot rank for this grant, nevertheless all he has to do, having placed the contract, is to take a job under the contractor and get paid for doing the job himself. Has there ever been a more absurd proposition put before the House? I very much doubt it.
We often hear the townsman accuse the farmer of dishonesty or near dishonesty, and we often hear it said that everything is done for the farmer and nothing is done for the townsman on the question of food. But here we have a suggestion by a former Minister of Agriculture to the present Minister, that we do not need to worry about this too much and that farmers can do what they want behind the scenes because the law is so drafted that they can do a "fiddle." That is what it boils down to.
If right hon. Gentlemen opposite consider it part of their duty in opposition to recommend that farmers should indulge in what is nothing less than a "fiddle," then the duty of opposition has fallen by the wayside. Instead, we have a positive encouragement by the Opposition to do something so nearly dishonest that it virtually makes no difference. It is utterly appalling that we should have the suggestion which has been made by the right hon. Member for Don Valley.
I think that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) wishes to intervene. Apparently, he has thought better of it. I am not surprised, because I think that my argument is completely convincing. I am reminded of something said by Lord Montgomery after giving a lecture at a staff college. He said. "There will be no time set apart for questions, because what I have said is indisputably right." I am inclined to think that what I have said is indisputably right.
Down the years Governments have absolutely outrageously misused tax after tax and, of all taxes, they have misused death duties the most. If they go on using death duties as income when, in fact, they are capital, then no matter how many grants the Minister gives we shall never get our farms in order.

Mr. Amory: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) is feeling lighthearted. There is only one comment I need make on what he said, and I think that this will apply to all Ministers going back for a very long time in our history. It is that they cannot alter any tax—either put it up or down—without the permission of Parliament.

Mr. Willey: The Minister has said that he will use standard charges for another


purpose than that originally understood. We understood that they would be used for administrative reasons. He now says that we will possibly use the charges to overcome the difficulty we have discussed today. I hope that before there is any question of doing that he will consult the trade unions. If he is considering building work being done by the farmer, it is a matter which ought to be discussed with the building industry.

Mr. Amory: I think I said during the Committee stage that one of the reasons which led us to devise standard charges as an alternative, at the option of the applicant and where appropriate, was to help with this problem and to go some way to meet the views, expressed in Committee, that the farmer's own labour should be eligible. I made it clear that that was one of our objects at that stage, and I have repeated it today. We adopted it because it was the only way we could find that was administratively practical.

Mr. Willey: I am not raising any query on the merits of the matter, but as it is being put forward in this way—that it is hoped to provide for building work being done by the farmer and being grant-aided—I think that it would be as well to see that there is consultation with the trade unions in the building industry, because they may have a point of view about certain types of work. I am not making any objection, but it would be a wise precautionary measure to have such consultations.

Mr. Amory: The hon. Member will realise, I am sure, that this principle is already in practice, as it were, under the Act providing silo subsidy, where, in some cases the work consists of some constructional work.

Mr. Willey: I accept that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The House has listened to hon. Members opposite and to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), who wasted a considerable amount of the time of the House.

Major Legge-Bourke: Am I not right. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in saying that if an hon. Member wastes the time of the House he is at once called to order by you?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker(Sir Charles MacAndrew): I should be kept busy if I had to do that.

Mr. Willey: The simple point I am putting to the right hon. Gentleman is that we do not know what sort of building work he envisages as being covered by standard charges. There may be points arising about the character of certain work and whether that work ought not to be carried out except by people in the industry. For that reason, I should have thought it a wise precautionary measure at least to say that we should keep in touch with the building industry and have consultations with both sides of the industry.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 16.—(GRANTS TOWARDS COSTS OF AMALGAMATION.)

Mr. Godber: I beg to move, in page 13, line 20, to leave out from "securing" to "the" in line 21 and insert:
the formation of economic units of agricultural land".
This Amendment is put forward as a result of various suggestions put to us on Second Reading and in Committee, when it was felt that there should be greater clarity about the introductory words of this Clause. The Amendment does not seek to make any dramatic change, but we think it puts the position rather more clearly in that it relates the economic unit primarily to the occupier rather than to the owner. That, briefly, is the purpose. The Amendment makes no radical change of any sort, but we think that it would simply put into effect what we want to achieve. It is little more than a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Dye: I beg to move, in page 13, line 30, to leave out "agricultural land" and insert "small holding".
In this Clause the Government are taking powers to do something with regard to agriculture which no Government have done before. They are seeking to give a subsidy to assist a person in buying a parcel of agricultural land and paying the fees in connection therewith. This is a new departure and, although there may be some reason for it in respect of a small owner or a comparatively poor person getting assistance, I cannot see any justification for giving this kind of public


assistance to a large farmer or land owner so that he may buy and add to his holding a small parcel of land on the borders of his farm.
The purpose of this Clause is twofold. it is to enable the amalgamation of uneconomic holdings and to enable absorption of uneconomic holdings. I take "absorption" to mean the owner of a bigger holding acquiring a smaller one. I certainly do not take it to mean the acquiring of a bigger holding by a small holder. That we can hardly expect. If right the hon. Gentleman's purpose in this Clause were purely to enable two, or maybe more, small uneconomic units to be brought together under the same occupation—there might be difficulties in the way and the costs might be great— I would not oppose that and would leave the wording as it is, but this Clause seems to leave open the proposition that anyone applying for a grant in this respect can do so in relation to any kind of small uneconomic unit.
5.15 p.m.
After stimulation from me, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary made a speech in support of this Amendment earlier when he said that it was not the intention of the Government to enable land ownersh.p—landlordism—to be extended at the expense of small occupying owners. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was right in his contention, that the purpose of the Bill and this Clause was not to enable the return of the big estates. I am glad of that. If the hon. Gentleman re-reads that speech he will see that it fits in quite well with support of this Amendment because I am trying to limit the purposes of this Clause to a narrow purpose.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Would the Amendment restrict it to the rather technical meaning of "small holder," which that term sometimes has? If so, would the hon. Member require it to be limited in that way?

Mr. Dye: I do not know to what the hon. Member is referring. The word "small holding" is used in the agricultural small holdings legislation. It also applies to a holding owned and occupied by a person who has a comparatively small acreage, and in that sense I have used it here. I have used it as an alternative to the Government's

term of "unit". I think "small unit" is not a suitable phrase in connection with this Bill and I use the term "small holding" in that broader sense.
I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment and say that the purpose of this Clause is a simple and straightforward one, to enable the amalgamation of small uneconomic units and to give grants in connection with legal expenses and other incidentals therewith. I think that would be straightforward and quite understood.
As the Clause is drawn, it is possible for a big land owner or a big farmer to apply for a grant to buy out one of his very small neighbours. I want to limit that provision, and I think that the Minister is very much in agreement with what I say. I have here a report from a local newspaper of a speech which he made in Norwich on Saturday. The headline is "Government aim to help small farmer". The impression which that gives is that the Government are prepared to help only the small farmer—and that is the impression which the Minister wanted to give to those he was addressing.
I want to limit this provision of the Bill to the small farmer, because I do not think it right that a rich farmer should go to the Government for a grant to take over a small holding on his border. The report reads:
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr, D Heathcoat Amory) emphasised in a speech at Norwich on Saturday that the Government had no wish to stamp out the small farmer. 'We have a good proportion of such men, and we want them for a number of reasons', he said. 'It is not true that all small farms are uneconomic. On the contrary, many of their occupiers are among the most efficient producers in the country'. It might well be, however, that in the future pattern of British farming there would be fewer small units than there were today.
The Minister went on to say that
so far as it legitimately could, the Government had tried to design the farm improvements grants scheme to help the smaller man, although it should be borne in mind that the object of the grant was to secure more efficient production.

Hon. Members: Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Dye: Apparently I am getting the support of hon. Members opposite for my Amendment, which would restrict this assistance to the small man.
If we were to give assistance to a rich than in the purchase of land we should have some difficulty in explaining that to the people. The grant towards the purchase of land should not be made available to any rich people and not to the type of farmer whom I mentioned in Committee—the hobby farmer, whose money is made elsewhere but who owns estates in the country largely for the leisure and pleasure he gets out of them. Nor should the grant be given to thriving people, whether they are in business in a very large way or in a moderate way. I want to limit the grant to the amalgamation of small uneconomic units.

Mr. Watkins: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Godber: I am sure that both my right hon. Friend and the House are grateful for being reminded of some words which my right hon.. Friend used at Norwich on Saturday. It has given us great pleasure to hear them again. I am sure that the people of Norwich were very glad to hear them.

Mr. Dye: The people who heard him were not Norwich people.

Mr. Godber: The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) has prayed those words in aid of his own Amendment but he has applied his own interpretation to them.
I should like to deal with the hon. Gentleman's Amendment and the rest of his speech on their merits. He has said that he is mostly concerned to see that the benefits of this Clause are not given to what he described as the rich land owner. That is where we look at matters from a different angle, because we are looking at them from the point of view of the land rather than the owner. If we try to look at the Bill in terms of the owner, whether it be by way of a means test at one end or a rich owner at the other end, we get into considerable difficulties. We are concerned with the long-term benefit to the agricultural land of this country. I think that the hon. Member is, too, but he cannot get it if he looks at the problem in the terms of his Amendment.
Because we look at the problem from the point of view of benefiting the land, we do not think it would be right to

accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. It might well introduce all sorts of restrictions on amalgamations which are right and proper from the point of view of sound, economic farming. We accept that it would be wrong for large numbers of these small farmers to be bought up but where uneconomic holdings exist, perhaps on the edge of larger holdings, we feel that it might be justifiable for them to be completely absorbed. On the other hand we should prefer to see two uneconomic holdings put together to form one reasonably-sized unit.

Mr. J. Grimond: I understand that the Clause excludes crofts. If the hon. Member is looking at the problem from the point of view of the land, why should it be assumed that there will not be occasions when two crofts should be amalgamated?

Mr. Godber: I believe that there is legislation applying specifically to crofts. That is the reason why they have not been included in the Bill. I cannot claim to be an expert on the problem of crofts, but I know that there are special problems relating to them and I think that they are covered by separate legislation. That is why they have not been inclued in the terms of the Bill.
It is right to remind the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West that in any case these agreements and amalgamations must be voluntary. They cannot be brought about compulsorily. A tenant still has all the right of protection against eviction or dispossession. An owner is not bound in any way to accept any offer by a large landowner. The amalgamation is voluntary. The hon. Member is looking at the matter as though it were compulsory, but it is not. His right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), in Committee, was clear about that, because he felt that it might be difficult to make the progress we wish because these amalgamations are voluntary. We have to seek to encourage people, where possible, to make use of the provision, in areas where we think it is right that amalgamations should take place, but we have no compulsory power over them. That is the safeguard for the people whom he has in mind.
In any case, we do not think it would be practicable to agree to accept the Amendment because it would limit what


we could do. Lord St. Aldwyn's Committee will naturally view very carefully the whole basis on which these amalgamation grants should be made. It will no doubt set out a rough code of procedure and will take note of the desire which the hon. Member has declared, and which I imagine is fairly generally shared, that in general it shall not be the case that small farms shall be sucked into very large units. That Committee will wish, I feel sure, rather to see two or more of these units brought together to make one effective unit, where that is desirable. But in any case, I do not think it would be right to limit its discretion in this matter. For that reason, I could not advise the House to accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Dye: I beg to move, in page 13, line 40, after "approved", to insert:
provided that the occupants of the land have been notified of the application".
The purpose of the Amendment is to make sure that the tenant of a so-called uneconomic holding which somebody else is trying to buy should himself be informed of any such move. It is only right that the tenant should be informed if there is likely to be a change of land ownership for which the Government are giving a grant. Merely to change the ownership of the land could, of itself, perhaps do no good. It might only prove to be an exchange of one landlord for another—possibly of a good one for a worse. The purpose of an intending purchaser might be to get possession of the land, and he could get a grant towards buying out the tenant right. The tenant should be informed first of any such possibility, because he might, in those circumstances, be himself inclined to buy.
Generally speaking, I do not think that it is right for anybody to try to buy land behind the back of the existing occupier. I have had drawn to my attention quite recently that that has happened in respect of land owned by the Land Commission, though it was generally understood that the Land Commission, when selling its land, would make a first offer to any sitting tenant. In one case, a neighbouring owner approached the Land Commission with a view to buying some of its land without the knowledge of the tenant.
It would be indefensible if the Government were, or were likely, to dispose of land without the knowledge of the existing occupant to some other person or company, but such a thing could happen. It seems to me that the general principle should be that if grants are given towards the purchase of land the existing occupant should be fully informed before any such transaction takes place.

Mr. Watkins: I beg to second the Amendment.
I hope that the Minister will consider it carefully, as it is rather important. The Minister himself has laid down in the Bill that proposed transactions must have his approval, and that such particulars as he may require must be provided. That being so, surely in the event of an amalgamation the occupants of these holdings should get notification. There is nothing more disturbing than to get one's first information by listening to farmers' wives in the market place on market day. The Forestry Commission used to be particularly bad in this respect. At one time tenants did not know that their holding had been taken over. I therefore think that this Amendment should be accepted.

Mr. Godber: I am not surprised to hear that the first news that people get is often what their wives hear in the market place on market day. I believe that that is the most fertile source of information known to the agricultural industry.
I understand the fears and the views expressed by both the hon. Members, but this matter is rather comparable to that raised in relation to Clause 12, where, although we do not agree that we can write it into the Bill, we have given an undertaking that as a matter of administration, owners and tenants will be notified of any arrangements that may concern them. We think that this might well be a comparable case where notification should be given, but we do not think that it would be wise to attempt to write that provision into the Bill.
The reasons here against writing the provision into the Bill are more cogent even than those given in Committee in respect of Clause 12 by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)—because the subject matter here is more involved. I think that the arguments are even more valid here, but I


can give an undertaking that we shall, in all cases, notify owners and tenants administratively wherever this arises. I think that that undertaking should go far to meeting the desires of hon. Members, but I do not think that I can invite the House to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Willey: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has given a very unsatisfactory reply. We should not argue by reference to Clause 12, which dealt with an entirely different question—that of legal interest. Here the occupants are known, and I should have thought that there was no reason why the Amendment should not be accepted.

Mr. Godber: I do not think that I can accept that. In a good many cases, undoubtedly, the occupants may be known, but there are cases, in which a number of people have an interest in the land, where it would be difficult indeed to establish the facts. I have given a fairly reasonable undertaking and one which, I should have thought, in one of his more generous moods the hon. Gentleman would have said was more than adequate. I assure him that we are seeking to do as the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) desires, but we do not think it wise to write it legally into the Bill. That is the only difference between us. I give him the assurance quite categorically that we will notify these people.

Mr. Dye: The Parliamentary Secretary's reply is most unsatisfactory, and I should not think that he has convinced any of his supporters on that side of the House, let alone hon. Members on this. We now know of the danger that is coming to tenants of agricultural land, and that the security that has so far been given to them by the 1947 Act is likely to be taken away from them very soon after 1957. It is because of what the Government have in mind, about security of tenure and the rights which they now hope will go, that I want to make quite sure that where a subsidy is given to a person to purchase land, the occupier or tenant should be given prior notice.
The Parliamentary Secretary has fallen down completely in his reply, and we

must stand for the rights of the tenant in this respect. A man can have put a lot of work and capital and value into his land, and he should not have it bought over his head by anyone, particularly someone assisted by the Government in the purchase. I hope that the House will not agree with the Government and that, if necessary, it will divide.

Mr. Paget: The Parliamentary Secretary quoted what I said with regard to the difficulty of ascertaining legal ownership and legal interests. That is totally irrelevant to the question of occupancy. Occupancy is a question of fact. The occupant is the chap who is there. There is not the slightest difficulty in doing what the Amendment seeks to do, and we have had utterly unreasonable reasons advanced against it.

Mr. Godber: I feel that I have given a specific undertaking that we will do administratively all these things that we are being asked to do. Therefore, I think that the remarks of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West are quite unjustified. I have given a categorical assurance, and the hon. Gentleman, by responding as he has done, does not encourage us to give way or to help him as we are trying to do.
I am sorry if I quoted the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) in any way which he regards as improper. I thought that there was considerable similarity. We have here a case of amalgamations where the ownership can become very involved. I know that this Amendment refers only to occupants, but I was dealing with the whole picture, although perhaps a little too broadly. I have given a categorical assurance that the occupants will be informed, and I would have hoped that that would be a reasonable assurance.

Mr. Paget: If the hon. Member can give that categorical assurance, why not put it in the Bill? Not one reason has been given for not including it in the Bill. There are no legal complexities here. One can see who is in occupation and the occupants can be told. The hon. Gentleman says that that will be done: then why not put it in the Bill?

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill: —

Division No. 117.]
AYES
5.42 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Hannan, W.
Parker, J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hastings, S.
Paton, John


Baird, J.
Healey, Denis
Pearson, A.


Balfour, A.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Pentland, N.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon, F. J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Benson, G.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Holmes, Horace
Probert, A. R.


Blackburn, F.
Houghton, Douglas
Proctor, W. T.


Blenkinsop, A.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Randall, H. E.


Blyton, W. R.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Redhead, E. C.


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Reeves, J.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercllffe)
Reid, William


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Bowles, F. G.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Boyd, T. C.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Royle, C.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Brockway, A. F.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Lawson, G. M.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Skeffington, A. M.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Lindgren, G. S.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Lipton, Marcus
Soskice, Rt. Hon, Sir Frank


Champion, A. J.
Mabon, Dr. J, Dickson
Stones, W. (Consett)


Coldrick, W.
MacColl, J. E.
Sylvester, G. O.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
MacDermot, Niall
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
McGhee, H. G.
Tomney, F.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Cronin, J. D.
Mahon, Slmon
Viant, S. P.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Wade, D. W.


Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)
Mason, Roy
Watkins, T. E.


Dodds, N. N.
Mellish, R. J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Dye, S.
Messer, Sir F.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mitohison, G. R.
West, D. G.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Monslow, W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Willey, Frederick


Fienburgh, W.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gibson, C. W.
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Oram, A. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Greenwood, Anthony
Orbach, M.
Wlnterbottom, Richard


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Owen, W. J.
Woof, R. E.


Grey, C. F.
Paget, R. T.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Zilliacus, K.


Hail, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Palmer, A. M. F.



Hamilton, W. W.
Pargiter, G. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Rogers and Mr. Deer.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Channon, Sir Henry
Gibson-Watt, D.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Godber, J. B.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Goodhart, Philip


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Gough, C. F. H.


Arbuthnot, John
Cooke, Robert C.
Gower, H. R.


Armstrong, C. W.
Cooper, A. E.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Atkins, H. E.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Green, A.


Baldwin, A. E.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Balniel, Lord
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Barber, Anthony
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Barter, John
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip— Northwood)
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Cunningham, Knox
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Currie, G. B. H.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Deedes, W. F.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. MCA.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
du Cann, E. D. L.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Body, R. F.
Elliott,R. W.(N' castle upon Tyne. N.)
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Errington, Sir Erio
Hirst, Geoffrey


Braine, B. R.
Farey-jones, F. W.
Hobson,John (Warwick &amp; Leam 'gt' n)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Fell, A.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Finiay, Graeme
Hope, Lord John


Brooman-White, R. C.
Fisher, Nigel
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Freeth, Denzil
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Butler, Rt.Hn. R.A. (Saffron Walden)
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Howard, John (Test)

The House divided:Ayes136,Noes180.

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Roper, Sir Harold


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Marshall, Douglas
Sharpies, R. C.


Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Mathew, R.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Mawby, R. L.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Moore, Sir Thomas
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Nairn, D. L. S.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Neave, Airey
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Kerr, H. W.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Kershaw, J. A.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Kimball, M.
Oakshott, H. D.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Kirk, P. M.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Lagden, G. W.
Page, R. G.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Teeling, W.


Lambton, Visoount
Partridge, E.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Leburn, W. G.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Vane, W. M. F.


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Longden, Gilbert
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Pott, H. P.
Wall Major Patrick


Lucas, P. B, (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Powell, J. Enoch
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


McKibbin, A. J.
Profumo, J. D.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Rawlinson, Peter
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Wood, Hon. R.


Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)
Renton, D. L. M.
Woollam, John Victor


Macmillan, Maurlce (Halifax)
Ricisdale, J. E.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Maddan, Martin
Robertson, Sir David



Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maltland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Mr. Wills and Mr.Bryan.

Clause 19.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO ORDERS AND REGULATIONS.)

Mr. Amory: I beg to move, in page 14, line 28, to leave out from "containing" to "regulations" in line 29.
The object of this Amendment, and the next one, is to give effect to a wish expressed by a number of hon. Members in Committee, that any change by order in the items of the Second Schedule should be subject to the affirmative procedure and not the negative procedure. The general view was that it would be quite an important change if a new item were added or something were taken off the list, and it was felt that it should be subject to the affirmative procedure. I hope that that explanation will appeal to the House.

Mr. Willey: On behalf of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and myself, I should like to thank the Minister for the step he has taken. In this regard, he has exceeded the virtue of my right hon. Friend in the Hill Farming Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 14, line 32, after "under", insert "subsection (4) or".—[Mr. Amory.]

Clause 23. — (ESTABLISHMENT AND FUNCTIONS OF PIG INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.)

Mr. Amory: I beg to move, in page 15, line 30, at the end to insert "marketing".
Here again, I am proposing a series of Amendments to meet a point raised in Committee by, I think, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer). They persuaded me that we should make it clear beyond a peradventure that the Authority should have power to investigate and, as it were, supervise all activities from the rearing of the pig to retailing.
I ought to say that, while including marketing as an activity which can be investigated, the Authority could not, under this Amendment, itself promote or carry out marketing schemes, nor would it be able regularly to buy and sell pigs, except so far as such trading may be ancillary to its other activities provided for in the Bill.

Sir Leslie Plummer: I should be less than grateful were I not to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has accepted the Amendments moved in Committee and has fulfilled his promise that, if he were satisfied with the arguments after he had considered them, he would, in fact, table


the Amendments which he has now tabled. I am glad also because I feel that a great disservice was done to the pig industry by the decision of the Commission that the marketing of pigs should not be undertaken by a board. I do not think that it was a matter of design, but it was a matter of fact that, as a result of that decision, the impression was left that the marketing of both bacon and pork was completely satisfactory. The fact that the Commission had recommended against there being a marketing hoard certainly spread the view that all is well in the marketing of pigs. Those of us who are concerned with the production of both pork and bacon know that the reverse is true.
I do not doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has read the remarks of the President of the Ulster Farmers' Union, who, on taking office a week or so ago, said:
Marketing is of more importance than all the considerations of good husbandry, high output, and low costs put together.
I do not go as far as that gentleman; in my view, he exaggerates the situation. If hon. Members care to read the whole of his speech, they will find that he talks about the strength of the Farmers' Union which. in itself, is quite an exaggeration. But, without going as far as he goes, I say that there is no question that we have disorderly marketing, and the powers which the Minister is now giving to the Development Authority to attend to the weaknesses in marketing and to make recommendations will be accepted with gratitude by everybody concerned in pig and bacon production in this country.
I notice that the Joint-Parliamentary Secretary, speaking at the Elmswell Bacon Factory carcase competition—or whatever it was—a little while ago, praising the production of English pork and bacon, said that there was, nevertheless, too much variation in quality and in conformation. I wish he had added—this is becoming a "King Charles' head" of mine that there is too much variation in curing in this country. We have not yet understood what the Danes understood twenty-five years ago, that, if one produces a pig bred for the purpose and if one then cures to the taste of the customer, one will capture the market. It was a simple problem which the Danes

had to solve, and they solved it. It is a pity that we have throughout our country this variation in cure; it is, I think, partly responsible for the fact that many British housewives, even in rural areas, go into the shops and ask for Danish instead of home-produced bacon.
I hope that the investigations of the Development Authority will be directed into making representations to the right hon. Gentleman and to the trade as to how orderly marketing through the proper siting of markets, the proper siting of bacon curing factories, etc., can he accomplished as speedily as possible. I accept, of course, what the Minister has said about his Amendments not indicating that the Government will encourage the setting up of a marketing board, but, apart altogether from that, there is a great deal of very useful work which the Development Authority can now do.
Finally, I want to remind the Minister and. I hope, ultimately, the Authority, that there is no industry in the country which spends so little on market research and investigation as agriculture. If There were another industry producing£1,200 million worth of wealth a year, an industry comparable with agriculture, which followed agriculture's line. except in the case of potatoes, milk, and now eggs, and let marketing, as it were, "go hang", that industry would find itself in a very rocky position. If it is to impress itself on the nation as an industry the prosperity of which is vital, agriculture must study not only its production methods in an attempt to produce food as cheaply as possible, but it must also study market trends, market tastes, distribution problems, etc. Money spent in that direction is not an extravagance but an investment.
I hope that the Pig Industry Development Authority, in considering the problems now facing the industry as a result of the present haphazard marketing, will be determined to provide for producer, curer, wholesaler and grocer the information that all of them must have if this industry is to be organised on a proper, efficient, and prosperous basis.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 15, line 31, after "manufacture", insert "marketing".—[Mr. Amory.]

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Amory: I beg to move, 15, line 39, to leave out:
at the request of the Authority".
This Amendment is the result of suggestions made by Members in Committee, including the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) and others, that it was a pity not to leave the Ministers discretion to be able to initiate changes in the functions of the Pig Industry Development Authority. Naturally, no Minister would change its functions or responsibilities without consultation with the Authority. After consideration, I feel that the suggestions which were made were good ones and that we ought to leave the Ministers with freedom to initiate a change in functions if they consider it to be in the interests of the industry.

Sir L. Plummer: In once again thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his co-operation, I should say that in moving the original Amendment in Standing Committee I did so in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), who was attending the meeting of the Council of Europe, at Strasbourg. I was glad, therefore, to put my hon. Friend's case in word's less adequate and significant than he would have used had he been present. The right hon. Gentleman should include in his benison my hon. Friend for his sagacity in having thought of the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 24. —(CONSTITUTION OF THE UTHORITY.)

Mr. A. J. Champion: I beg to move, in page 16, line 9, after "seventeen", to insert:
(or such larger number as the Minister by order may determine)".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss, at the same time, the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), in page 16, line 23, to leave out "one shall be a person" and to insert "two shall be persons".

Mr. Champion: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Obviously, the two go together.
This is a matter which we have to some extent thrashed out before. After listening to the last few Amendments by the Minister, we are bound to say that his attitude and approach to the Amendments which have come from the Opposition during the passage of the Bill has been most reasonable.

Mr. Willey: With an aberration.

Mr. Champion: No, he has done it very well. The right hon. Gentleman has acceded to what I regard as the wholly admirable suggestions of members of the Standing Committee on many aspects of the Bill. It is difficult, therefore, to understand why he appears to be obdurate in the matter of increasing the membership of the Authority by one and, in particular, by one person who is employed particularly in production, There seem to us be excellent reasons for increasing the Authority by one person and that that one person should be somebody employed in the production of pigs.
The first reason is that there is necessity for encouraging workers to take an increasing interest in the industry. It is not merely a matter of workers getting their employment from the industry and leaving it and ceasing to think about it immediately they cease work. We want workers to take an interest in the industry as a whole, in its finances, its general economy and in everything which will be involved in the work particularly of the Authority.
The House of Commons has talked in terms of encouraging industrial democracy and of encouraging workers to participate in the job of running the industry. Here is just one instance in which the Government could very well encourage the workers to take an interest in the industry in which they are employed. It is true that they are to have one representative, but we feel that they should have two.
One of the reasons is that two great trade unions happen to be involved in the recruitment of farm workers. Obviously, the Minister will have to consult these unions before he appoints the workers' representative to the Authority. It would seem to us to be reasonable that the Minister should appoint somebody after consulting each of those two great unions and it would be quite obvious that each of them could very well put forward one


name which the Minister could accept; or they could put forward a number of names and he could choose one from the suggestions of each of the unions. We hope that the Minister will consider this important aspect.
The third reason is that the Reorganisation Commission for Pigs and Bacon itself, which considered the whole matter, made the recommendation that two people who are employed in the industry should have membership of the Authority. The Minister has departed from the recommendation of the Commission by increasing the number of representatives of the pedigree pig breeders. He did so on the ground of balance between the pedigree and the commercial breeders. In doing so, he reduced the number of workers' representatives who are directly employed in the production of pigs. It is inevitable that in these circumstances the men in the industry and their union have a feeling that the Minister has let them down. They are bound to have that feeling and the Minister now has the chance of putting it right.
For these reasons, I hope that the Minister will tonight indicate his acceptance of the Amendment and that he will put right what the workers within the industry and in the unions in particular regard as an injustice. His reply on this point in Committee was wholly unconvincing. His case was a bad one. It is true that he said he was greatly impressed by the grasp of the technicalities of their job by the men of all ages, both the youngsters and the older men. That was a reference to a certain section of the industry, but I am sure that it could be applied over the whole industry. That is an attitude deserving of every possible encouragement by this House and by the Minister in particular. Despite the right hon. Gentleman's reasonableness so far, he has rather blotted his copybook concerning the number of workers' representatives on the Authority.
I plead with the Minister to accept the Amendment and thus ensure that we leave the House tonight feeling reasonably happy that we have achieved something more and so that the right hon. Gentleman himself will gain our further commendation for his reasonable approach to suggestions which are properly made by this side of the House.

Mr. P. Wells: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would impress upon the Minister the importance placed upon this matter by both the trade unions concerned, and I hope that he will not remain pig-headed about it. I should like him to visualise the position of the agricultural workers' representative upon the Authority. He will have no colleague to consult, no colleague to second any motion he may move, or to support him in bringing forward any matter he wants to submit.
Agricultural workers are very important people. We have all been saying so for a very long time. They are more important than makers of pork pies or sausages, who are given, I notice, equal representation upon this Authority. I hope that the Minister will take note of what my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) said about the fact that there are two trade unions concerned in the organisation of agricultural workers. It would simplify matters if the right hon. Gentleman would make this very small concession. We have not got much out of him or out of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary yet. I hope that he will see the wisdom of agreeing to this Amendment.

Mr. Amory: I wish I could agree to these two Amendments, but after very careful consideration, which I have given to this as to other matters, I have concluded that I ought not to. There are two aspects of the matter. One is the number on the Authority and the other is the composition of the Authority.
As to the size of the body, this is a very important Authority which is being set up, and it will have difficult work to do. I am very anxious indeed that it should not grow gradually and become too big a body. The Reorganisation Commission for Pigs and Bacon itself was very alive to that danger, and it made its suggestions with that in mind. I know it will be said that this proposal is to add only one member to the Authority. However, if we were to add, as is proposed, to the number on the Authority the whole question of the composition of the body would have to be reconsidered.
That brings me to the second aspect of the matter. The Reorganisation Commission thought that the numbers would be right if there were two representatives


of the workers in the industry upon the Authority, and I, too, thought that it would be the right proportion. If we were to make such a change as is now proposed, then, to get the balance right, there ought to be an increase in the representation of the workers in branches of the industry other than the production branch.
I can assure hon. Gentlemen that I am not resisting the Amendment because we are hostile to the idea of worker representation on a body like this. On the contrary, if the Reorganisation Commission had not made a recommendation to that effect we certainly should have commended that there should be two representatives of the workers on the Authority. I believe that if we were to change our mind now upon the matter we should be led into further complications, and should have to reconsider the whole composition of the Authority. We should be under considerable pressure from other sections of the industry to increase their representation.
I believe that the wise thing to do is strictly to confine ourselves now to 17 and to keep the representation where it is at present. If in the light of experience some other number or some other composition is found to be desirable, that, I believe, ought to be the subject of fresh legislation.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Dye: The right hon. Gentleman has just made his worst speech upon the Bill. He did not speak with conviction. He knows quite well that he is dealing with the request of the workers in this industry for adequate representation on this important Development Authority. The right hon. Gentleman often—and quite rightly—pays lip service to the value of the farm workers. Now he is being asked to give them adequate representation on this Development Authority. The reason he gives for not acceding to the request is merely that to increase the Authority from 17to18 would be to make it disproportionate, so that it could not work effectively, and that others might ask for further representation.
Let the right hon. Gentleman consider the proposal in the Amendment from the point of view of the farm worker who is to sit on the Authority. That man will not be in the same position as any other

person chosen to be on the Authority. He will not have had the same training and education. He may feel that he is inferior to the other members of the Authority. If there could be two workers' representatives, one from one part of the country and one from another, each would give the other confidence, and each would have greater confidence than either could working alone. The contributions which they could make to the Authority's work would be much more worth while than the contributions which either of them alone would be likely to make.
A farm worker, despite his experience in pig breeding, feeding and management, taken from his farm and brought to the Authority's meetings in London, would be at a disadvantage in discussions with the other people upon the Authority, but if there were two farm workers who could talk things over wth each other before going to the meetings, and who, at the meetings, could support each other, there would be more likelihood of their joint contributions being of more worth, from the agricultural workers' point of view, than the contributions of one representative only. If the Minister could for a moment imagine himself in the position of the solitary farm worker selected to serve on the Authority he would understand the argument which I am trying to put to him.
The contributions which the agricultural workers can make to the improvement of the pig industry entitle them to an increased representation, and two representtatives would be able to make better contributions than one. They would not approach the problem in the same way as a pedigree pig breeder, or any of the other people who have experience of this kind of work. I hope that we shall see the time when the farm workers as such, men who have acquired knowledge and experience in the industry, and who are beginning to play a part in discussions about it, will be enabled to play an effecttive part in the development of their industry. To that end we must give them the confidence that is to be found in numbers. The country as a whole would benefit.
The other workers in the industry would feel it worth while to send suggestions to their representatives on the Development Authority if they had two representatives rather than one on the


Authority. Looking at it from the point of view of the workers, I should have thought wisdom would have said that there was ample ground for making the number two and it would not harm anybody else to increase the membership of the Authority from 17to18.
We want this Authority to be a success and it car, only be a success if there is genuine co-operation on the part of scientists, manufacturers, farmers, and farm workers. Let the Government give a good start and not say that they will start with a membership of 17 and that if, in the course of years, they see that there is ground for a change they will change the membership later on. Let the Authority start on the right foot, or rather on both feet, and let the Government give the farmers what they are asking. It is only justice.

Mr. Willey: The Minister has shown a surprisingly rigid attitude, whereas generally he is very reasonable and conciliatory about matters of this kind. His reply will he disappointing to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) who, unfortunately, is prevented by public business from being present here today. We have shown particular interest in the representation of agricultural workers on this Authority, but that is not the issue raised in the Amendment. The Amendment is much broader. It would not compel the right hon. Gentleman to change his mind. It would merely offer him the opportunity to change it.
We are not saying, in the first Amendment, that the Minister must change the composition of the Authority. We are saying that he should have the opportunity to do so without the necessity of fresh legislation. Surely that is a reasonable approach. In Committee, we discussed the representation on the Authority of other possible interests. We dealt with the consumer. It is a mistake to approach this matter from the point of view of the difficulty of getting a representative of the consumer. When we have a council of this size we try to get a voice which will express the point of view of the consumer and will bring the problems of the consumer before it.
I have taken the consumer interest as an example. We want representation of that kind on an Authority such as this. I should have thought that the Minister

would have conceded the possibility of such a voice being heard within the Authority. I would make three claims on the point of trade union representation. In the first place, as has been pointed out, two unions cater for agricultural workers. I should have thought, for that reason, that it would be better to provide for two representatives. I do not quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman about trade union representation as such. I do not suggest for a moment that he is hostile to it. I concede that in this Authority he is allowing for two trade union representatives, but only one represents agricultural workers. We are all anxious about bringing the representation of workers into industry at an effective level, and I should have thought that if it is only a question of two or three in this case we should have allowed this additional representation.
My third reason is a straightforward and practical one. It is quite clear that the Authority will not work through full meetings of the Authority but rather through sub-committees. Is it expected that the agricultural workers' representative will be required to serve only on one sub-committee?

Mr. Amory: No, by no means. It would be open to the Authority to co-opt outside people on its sub-committees and it would be open to it, if it considered it useful to do so, to invite other workers' representatives to serve on the subcommittee.

Mr. Willey: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but when we are dealing with co-option we are dealing with the Authority working through subcommittees, and it is an important point whether the workers' interests are sufficient to entitle them to fuller representation on the Authority. There is difference of opinion between the right hon. Gentleman and the unions and I should have thought that he would have given way on the point. I concede that there is power for co-option, but when a sub-committee is responsible to the full Authority I should have thought that the unions would be heard if they felt that they should have direct representation to allow them, from the Authority, more fully to man the sub-committees. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has consulted the T.U.C. on the point.
We are moving the Amendment without prejudice to the matters which I have just discussed. We are doing no more than appealing to the right hon. Gentleman to keep these things in mind. We are not seeking powers to compel him to increase the composition of the Authority. I bring in support of the Amendment two further arguments. The right hon. Gentleman, for some reason, believes that there is some mystic virtue in the number 17.

Mr. Amory: Mr. Amory indicated dissent—

Mr. Willey: Well, then, in the number which is written into the Bill, which happens to be 17. In this respect, the right hon. Gentleman is not in accord with the recommendations of the Reorganisation Commission for Pigs and Bacon. The Commission spent more time on the subject than did the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Amory: I have weakened, have I not? I must be careful not to weaken any further.

Mr. Willey: If the right hon. Gentleman has weakened, he is unreliable and he ought to accept our advice. I will be more than fair to him and put him on a parity with the Reorganisation Commission. At present, we have before us two different pieces of advice. The right hon. Gentleman recommends 17 members and the Commission recommends 16. All we say is that, in the circumstances, we cannot be absolutely sure who is right and, therefore, we will provide an opportunity for the figure to be corrected if experience shows the Authority that it should be altered.
I do not think that in this case there is any particular virtue in 16, 17, 18 or 19. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have read a very interesting article the Economistrecently on executive bodies. When the figure 17 is reached we get beyond executive consideration and deliberation. That is why I referred to the sub-committees:
6.30 p.m.
This is a body which will review the work of the sub-committees and be responsible generally for policy. If we are talking about a body in that context, we get the right kind of representation, the

right kind of voices to be heard within such a body. For that reason, I should think the right hon. Gentleman would not be unduly rigid, and would say, "After all, we have had no experience in this field of work. The Government think at the moment that 17 is the right number. We may find in the light of experience that it is not, and therefore, we will allow ourselves an opportunity to review it."
I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to look at the point again in that spirit. He should put himself in a position where he is obliged to keep the matter under review. I do not conceal the fact that there would be pressure from certain quarters about representation. That is not altogether a bad thing. It keeps the Authority alive to the work it is carrying out, and it keeps other bodies alive to the work being carried out within the Authority. If they seek further representation, and the Minister has to consider it, this will not hurt the Authority.
So I hope that, without prejudice to the second Amendment about which we have not changed our views, with regard to the first Amendment the right hon. Gentleman will meet us so far by saying that he will accept it.

Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman has been very persuasive on both points. I will reply briefly to the question of the wider Amendment. My right hon. Friend has said all he can say about the second one.
On the first Amendment, enabling us to broaden the membership of the Authority at any later stage by an Order, we feel that it would not be wise for us to take such powers because, as the hon. Gentleman has said, we are bound to be under pressures from all kinds of bodies. We have seen it already. We feel that the Authority could conduct itself with greater security if we keep to the existing position.
It may well be that in the light of experience it might be considered right to make a change at a later stage—we do not know when. If that were so, it would be better to do it through fresh legislation at the time. I do not think it would be right to do it by means of an Order as a result of this Amendment. In any case, the Amendment would not be suitable, because it


seeks only to increase the size of the Authority and not to show how the membership would be split or altered.
In its present form, the Amendment would not meet the case entirely, and we feel that it would be better to give the Authority an opportunity to establish itself on the grounds we have set out. The hon. Gentleman says that 17 is too large a figure for an executive body, and that this would merely be a deliberative body in any case. As to that, I do not know, but I would have thought that to make it any larger would make it more unwieldy.
The second Amendment seeks to introduce one more agricultural worker. Although we have the greatest respect for the ability of the agricultural workers—they include, particularly, some of the best pig-men today—and although we have no doubt that they would be able to bring valuable knowledge to the Authority, this would upset the balance. It is important to realise this. If we accepted this Amendment, we would feel bound to introduce another worker on the other side, and we would again be exposing ourselves to great pressure from other people who felt they should be represented.

We should also be exposing ourselves to demands for increased representation from those who are now represented, and we should be getting ourselves out of balance in that we have seven now on either side—the production side and the curing and distributive side—together with the three independent members. If we upset that, we would be bound to take corrective action and so enlarge the Authority even more.

So, on balance, while we see the validity and strength of the demand for the extra agricultural worker, we feel that the position is met to the extent that there is already one representative, and because of the ability of the Authority to co-opt —and I hope it will co-opt freely—wherever it is felt that agricultural workers could be of assistance in the deliberations. I hope very much that it will make ample use of that power, which is probably the more effective way. Therefore, although we sympathise, we must stand on the number already stated.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 170.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Skeflington, A. M.
Viant, S. P.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Slater, J. (Sedgefleld)
Wade, D. W.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Watkins, T. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Soskice, Rt. Hon, Sir Frank
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Winterbottom, Richard


Stonehouse, John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Woof, R. E.


Stones, W. (Consett)
West, D. G.
Zilliacus, K.


Sylvester, G. O.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.



Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wilkins, W. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Tomney, F.
Willey, Frederick
Mr. Rogers and Mr. Deer




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Grlmston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Nairn, D. L. S.


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Arbuthnot, John
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Armstrong, C. W.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Oakshott, H. D.


Atkins, H. E.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Baldwin, A. E.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Page, R. G.


Balniel, Lord
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Barter, John
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Partridge, E.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Hobson, John (Warwlok &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pott, H. P.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Hope, Lord John
Powell, J. Enoch


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Rawlinson, Peter


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Remnant, Hon. P.


Braine, B. R.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Renton, D. L. M.


Braithwalte, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Howard, John (Test)
Robertson, Sir David


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral, J.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Roper, Sir Harold


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Sharpies, R. C.


Butler, Rt.Hn. R.A. (Saffron Walden)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Shepherd, William


Channon, Sir Henry
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Cooke, Robert C.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Cooper, A. E.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Kerr, H. W.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Kershaw, J. A.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kimball, M.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Kirk, P. M.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Lagden, G. W.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Teeling, W.


Cunningham, Knox
Lambton, Viscount
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Currie, G. B. H.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Deedes, W. F.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Longden, Gilbert
Vane, W. M. F.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Elliott, R. W.(N' castle upon Tyne. N.)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswiok)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F,


Errington, Sir Eric
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Wall, Major Patrick


Finlay, Graeme
McKibbin, A. J.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Fisher, Nigel
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Whitelaw, W. S. l.


Freeth, Denzil
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Gibson-Watt, D.
Maddan, Martin
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Godber, J, B.
Maltland, Cdr. J.F.W. (Horncastle)
Wood, Hon. R.


Goodhart, Philip
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Woollam, John Viotor


Gough, C. F. H.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Gower, H. R.
Marshall, Douglas



Graham, Sir Fergus
Mathew, R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Mawby, R. L.
Mr. Barber and Mr. Bryan


Green, A.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Amory: I beg to move, in page 16, line 13, after "no", to insert "substantial".
The object of the Amendment is to give the Ministers just a little more freedom of action in selecting and appointing

independent members. The words in the Bill provide that an independent member shall have no financial interest at all in the industry concerned. We feel that would be a little too restrictive. We do not want to rule out an independent member of this Authority if, for instance,


he keeps just a few pigs in a domestic way; nor would we necessarily want to rule out a business man if he happened to be a director of a company which had some small interest either as provision merchants or retailers and might, therefore, handle in some way some product containing pigmeat.
The new words that we have selected follow the provisions of the Sugar Act. 1956. I should like to make it clear that as Minister I should not dream of appointing anyone as an independent member who had an appreciable interest —certainly not anyone with a substantial interest—but I regard the chairmanship of this Authority as a very important position and I am anxious we should not lose any possibility of securing men as chairman and vice-chairman of the right calibre.

Mr. T. Williams: We readily accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman because we feel that the provision would otherwise be too restrictive, and might deny the right hon. Gentleman from getting the persons of the type he requires for what I regard as a very important post. Because of that we not only do not disagree, but we fundamentally agree with the conception of the Minister.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 16, line 36, after "manufacture", insert "marketing".—[Mr. Godber.]

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: I beg to move, in page 16, line 42, to leave out "and deputy chairman".
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), when introducing an Amendment a few moments ago, said that he was doing so in order to find out what the Minister was going to say. That is the reason for this Amendment.
The Minister has power to appoint 17 members of the Authority, and he then appoints the chairman and deputy chairman. What some members of the industry would like to know is why the Minister feels it essential that he should have the power to appoint the deputy chairman as well as the chairman. If the worst came to the worst, it is possible. I suppose, that the Authority might appoint as chairman one of the members representing one of the interests. If

that were done, it would be done with the Authority having its eyes wide open to what it was doing. What is more likely is that it would appoint one of the two independent members other than the one already appointed as chairman.
There are to be three independent members. One is to be the chairman, which would leave only two from whom the deputy Chairman would normally be expected to come. If the Minister had selected his Authority carefully, it does not seem unreasonable to think that the responsibility of picking the deputy chairman from one of these two members is one that he might well leave to the members of the Authority to consider.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary earlier this afternoon has been finding fundamental principles in various Amendments which have been put forward. It is in the hope that he may explain the fundamental principle behind the words already set out in subsection (3) that this Amendment is put down.

Captain F. V. Corfield: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Godber: I am getting a little nervous of the word "fundamental", so I do not propose to use it in this context. I think that it is important to clear up the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine). We have looked with a good deal of sympathy at the Amendment, but we do not think that there is justification for changing the line that we have set down for this purpose.
We are directly following the recommendation of the Reorganisation Commission, which said, in paragraph 176 of its Report, that
a fresh and impartial approach to the problems of the industry is required and we, therefore, recommend that the chairman be chosen by the Ministers from outside the industry, together with two other independent members, one of whom should be Vice-Chairman.
We accepted that recommendation because we considered that there were two objectives which would be achieved by providing for both the chairman and deputy-chairman to be appointed by the Ministers from among the independent members. First, proper weight would be given to the public interest as opposed to the sectional interest of the industry and, secondly, a proper balance would be


held between those sectional interests within the industry.
What we feared was that if we did not keep to the independent members there would be hesitation on the part of some sections of the industry within the Authority to vote for what was clearly a strong candidate from another section, for fear that they would be outweighed by one who might conceivably occupy the chairman's position during the chairman's absence, perhaps for a considerable period. It would be unfortunate if, for that reason, they had to choose someone they felt to be weaker.
We therefore felt that it would be right to keep the whole independent status of the body and that it would give strength to it if we were to abide by the recommendation of the Commission. That is the sole reason for putting it in this way. I hope that on consideration my hon. Friend will realise that it will probably be for the benefit of the Authority if both the chairman and the deputy-chairman are from the independent members.

Mr. Godman Irvine: In view of that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 31. —(PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO PART III.)

Mr. Amory: I beg, to move, in page 22, line 5, to leave out subsection (2) and to insert:
(2) An order under section twenty-three or section twenty-five of this Act shall be of no effect unless approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
I think that this Amendment is clear and needs no further explanation from me, other than to say that the provisions to which we are here applying the affirmative Resolution procedure are any additional functions to be laid on the Pig Industry Development Authority and any changes in the levy raised by that Authority.

Mr. Willey: As I said on previous Amendments, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and I raised the question of the affirmative Resolution procedure throughout our discussion in Committee. Once again, we wish to thank the Minister for

meeting us on the points which we made in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 36. —(REPEALS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.)

Further Amendments made: In page 24, line 5, after "commencement", insert "of Part I".

In line 21 leave out from beginning to "shall" in line 22 and insert:
The period during which orders under subsection (1) of section four of the Agriculture Act, 1947, have effect (being a period which would otherwise expire with the fifth day of August, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven) shall be extended until the commencement of Part I of this Act, and any order in force under that subsection at the commencement of the said Part I". —[Mr. Amory.]

Clause 37. —(SHORT TITLE, COMMENCE MENT AND EXTENT.)

Amendment made: In page 24, line 34, after "Act", insert:
except subsection (3) of section thirty-six".— [Mr. Amory.]

Mr. Wiley: I beg to move, in page 24, line 35, at the end to insert:
unless before that date Her Majesty by Order in Council has appointed some other day to he the day on which this Act shall come into force".
We had a full discussion on this matter in Standing Committee, when all hon. Members were anxious that we should expedite the implementation of the Bill. I called the right hon. Gentleman's attention to his virtue, and I will do so again. When we discussed the implementation of the White Fish and Herring Industries Bill, the Minister was very cautious, but it turned out that he was unduly cautious since he was able to implement the provisions much earlier than he had expected. I remind him of that, because I want to encourage him to be bold on this occasion.
When we discussed this matter in Committee the Parliamentary Secretary raised one or two matters upon which I expressed a different point of view. First, he said that the effect of this delay might not be as bad as we could otherwise expect because a good deal of maintenance work could be carried on before the Act came into operation. I feel that this is not a very satisfactory reply. On the contrary, I feel that a good deal of maintenance work might well be held up


because there was a feeling that it might be possible to get this work regarded as ranking for grant. Apart from the work wholly held up, contrary to expediting maintenance work some maintenance may well also be held up.
The second point on which I differed from the hon. Member concerned administrative difficulties. I pointed out. as I point out again, that we should not exaggerate the administrative difficulties. because the Department has been expeditiously preparing for the implementation of this Bill ever since the laying of the White Paper. It appears to be ready to receive and consider applications.
I have reminded the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of these matters, which they raised as reasons for not being able to accept the argument made on both sides of the Committee. I hope that now, having had further time for consideration and having approached a little nearer to the date of implementation envisaged in the Bill, the Minister can tell us that he can accept the present Amendment, which is a conciliatory Amendment. We are no longer trying to bind the Minister to particular dates. We are trying to allow for the possibility that he might well be able to anticipate the date provided for in the Bill.
I concede at once that this is not altogether a satisfactory Amendment. We are moving it because we failed with our Amendments in Standing Committee. I know that this Amendment is open to some objections, but in anticipation of those objections I would point out that we are laying down a specific date in the Bill, and the objections which can be raised to leaving the date undetermined are largely minimised by that factor. I hope that the Minister will either be able to accept the Amendment or be able to give us an assurance that there is still a possibility that he may be able to do better than he thought he would be able to do when the Bill was first introduced.

Mr. Watkins: I beg to second the Amendment.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Amory: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, I am in sympathy with the object of this Amendment, which is to facilitate this Bill becoming law as soon as possible. If I could see a reasonable

chance that advancing the date from 1st September, as it is at present, by a few weeks or a month or two would expedite matters, I would agree that this is a sensible proposal. But here, I think, we are up against the facts of the situation. Were we to bring the date forward to 1st August, that would be only nine weeks from now.
As hon. Members know, on about 3rd May we invited proposals for schemes so that we could carry out the preliminary work of considering them, inspecting and so on. Our intention was that if we found a scheme which was eligible—and assuming that Parliament has not altered the Bill in such a respect as to make it ineligible—directly after 1st September we would be able to give rapid approval to it.
During the Committee stage proceedings, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) asked me whether on Report Stage I would give such information as I could of the response which had been made. It is fairly early yet to make any statement as the period has been only two or three weeks, but I gladly give the House what information I have. We have had numerous inquiries. We printed 20,000 copies of the details of the provisions, with a form of application attached, and that has proved a "best seller"—metaphorically speaking, because actually they were given away—and we are now printing a second edition. But that merely shows the great interest in the matter. The number of what may be judged to be inquiries giving evidence of firm proposals amounts to 3,000 or 4,000 to date. Absolutely firm applications lodged with us in the past weeks amount to under a thousand, but we must remember that it is less than a month since we commenced to receive applications.
During the past two or three months there has been little pressure from farmers to advance the date. There was a certain amount of pressure soon after the issue of the White Paper, but during the past few months the pressure has been inconsiderable. I think farmers have realised the importance of giving a great deal of thought to their proposals before embarking on them. That applies also to the leading agricultural journals, which recently have been counselling caution and


urging us not to rush the starting of a matter of this importance. Were we to advance the date, on the evidence at present available, I believe that it would be a case of "More haste, less speed." Everything shows how important it is that schemes should be carefully planned and that my Department and the Scottish Department of Agriculture should step off with the right foot. The Advisory Committee has held one meeting, but it has quite a bit more work to do.
I strongly recommend right hon. and hon. Gentlemen not to press us to advance the date. It would be open to me to accept this Amendment, or something like it, but if I did so I do not feel that I would be acting strictly honestly with the people concerned. I feel now more strongly perhaps than I did a month or so ago—the Bill has made rapid and satisfactory progress through Parliament —that I should be misleading the industry by accepting this Amendment. If I see reason to change my mind during the remaining stages of this Bill and its passage through another place, I will make a suggestion to the contrary. But having said that, and so as not to mislead the industry, I am bound to say that at present I feel it would be a mistake to advance the date.

Mr. T. Williams: I appreciate the promised explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. I suspected that between the Committee stage proceedings and now he would either have his original views confirmed or he would be willing to be forthcoming. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) feel pleased that the right hon. Gentleman does not propose to accept the Amendment. I do not wish to say that too loudly, otherwise the right hon. Gentleman might defer the date. We prefer the date to be as it is.

Mr. R. H. Turton: My right hon. Friend has said he has had no pressure from farmers to advance the date—

Mr. Amory: I did not say there has been no pressure. I said "inconsiderable pressure"—much less pressure in the past two or three months than during the first month or two.

Mr. Turton: I will accept that. My hon. Friend says there has been "inconsiderable pressure" from farmers. In the North of England it has been quite the contrary. There has been a great deal of pressure for this date to be put forward from farmers in the North of England where there are a large number of schemes under consideration. Farmers in the North of England are very worried about how they will get building work done before the bad weather starts. In the South of England it is one matter, but in the North of England it is another.
I ask my right hon. Friend to consider this matter again, when he is aware of the progress which this Bill has made in another place. If he could alter the date to the extent of a fortnight it would make a considerable difference in the North of England. There the farmers have a lot of building of a fairly simple character to do, such as buildings for housing cattle and for storage. If the date could be advanced, together with the use of standardised buildings, the work could be done before the winter sets in.

Mr. du Cann: If there are cases where there is a special urgency, would my right hon. Friend be able to give his approval to proposals either on 1st September or as soon thereafter as possible? I have in mind a particular case in my constituency which may well be typical. It concerns a small area of about three miles square between two large villages where there is no electricity. The situation in that area is odd, because everywhere else for miles around there is a supply of electricity.
I understand that the South Western Electricity Board proposed to start work in the area, but local farmers are not anxious for work to be started until they can be certain of getting grants under the provisions of paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule. One can well understand that point of view. I am informed by the chairman of the Board that unless work is started fairly soon the construction gangs will have to be moved somewhere else, which will mean that the supply of electricity to this area would be delayed for a very long time.
The local county agricultural executive committee has rightly stated categorically that if any work is done at this stage it will not qualify for grant, and one accepts


that in principle there can be no question of retrospection. One also understands the difficulty about moving the date forward. But here is an urgent case where it would he appreciated if approval could be given right away after 1st September.

Mr. Amory: In the case my hon. Friend has mentioned, I would ask that the applicant, or applicants, put forward proposals in detail as soon as possible. We will then ensure that investigations are made and. if necessary, an inspection carried out. If there are strong reasons for urgency the proposals will fall into the category of those to which we shall give priority and grant approval at the earliest possible moment after 1st September.

Mr. Wiley: I am in some difficulty in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman says that he could accept the Amendment but that if he did it might be misleading. I do not want that situation to arise. It might well be misleading, because his view at present is that he will have to hold to the date provided in the Bill. The Minister has been good enough to say that he will keep the matter under review, and that if there should be an opportunity of bringing the Measure into operation earlier an announcement will be made in another place. That is much the most satisfactory course. We do not want to mislead anyone. On the other hand, we want to leave open the possibility that the right hon. Gentleman may yet be able to advance the date.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for keeping this matter under review, and in the circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Godber: I beg to move, in page 25, line 32, to leave out "restoration".
Those hon. Members who were on the Standing Committee will recall that we had a discussion upon this point in regard to fences, hedges, walls and gates, and the view was expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) that this was somewhat too wide a provision and that we should seek some means of narrowing it. We have looked into the position carefully. We have no desire to cut out anything which should come within the terms of the Bill but we have a great deal of sympathy with the

view that my hon. Friend put forward, that this provision was a trifle wide.
In particular, paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule is wider than paragraph 3, which refers merely to the making and improvement of roads, fords and bridges. We thought that if we were to take out the word "restoration" in this paragraph it would leave exactly the same sort of formula as that contained in the third paragraph. I am advised that in doing so we still leave ourselves a certain amount of room for particular restoration that is obviously necessary. This work would come within the terms of the Bill. because it would be covered by incidental operations under paragraph 12 of the Schedule.
We are, therefore, not wholly prohibiting restoration in every sense; we are prohibiting it only as a general rule. We think that it will lead to greater clarity. and it may well reduce the disappointment of intending applicants, if it is made clear now that such restoration as would normally be the result of tenants' neglect. and which tenants themselves should put right, will be excluded from the terms of the Bill. We have therefore introduced an Amendment in line with the suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend. I thank him for bringing the matter to our notice.

Mr. Baldwin: My recollection is that I also attacked this provision in Committee. I am not happy about it, because it seems to me that it will enable many unworthy works to rank for grant. Under the terms of paragraph 6, it appears that anyone who has neglected his fences, hedges, walls or gates will now receive assistance by way of a grant from funds which were really provided for the permanent improvement of buildings. If a man has neglected his fences, walls and gates, and they cost£100 to repair, he will receive a grant of£33.

Mr. Amory: Mr. Amoryindicated dissent.

Mr. Baldwin: The paragraph says:
Making, restoration, and improvement of permanent fences (including hedges), walls and gates.
If laying a hedge is not an improvement I do not know what the word means. The provision should have referred to the making of permanent fences, walls and gates. Let us have something permanent.
If we are to assist a man who has neglected his walls, we shall be using this


money for the wrong purpose. There is only a limited amount of money to be used, and it should not be used for those who have neglected their farms. I cannot see why a man who has not laid fences for a considerable time should receive a grant in respect of laying them. As the wording of the provision reads at present, that would appear to be the effect.
Furthermore, there will be a different interpretation of the provision from one county to another. In one county there may be a weak agricultural officer who will pass a scheme for carrying out ordinary repairs, while in an adjoining county it may well be that such a scheme will be turned down. I would prefer my right hon. Friend to cut out not only the word "restoration", but also the word "improvement". The provision should refer to the making of permanent fences, walls and gates.

Mr. Speaker: That would involve another Amendment, which is not before us.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Vane: I thank my hon. Friend for moving the Amendment. I am sure that the provision will be a much better one with the word "restoration" omitted although, as my hon. Friend has said, it may still be possible that some people will be left with the idea that they can get Government money to help make good past neglect. That is what we must avoid. Where a farmer is embarking upon a substantial improvement and new work, such as that which may be necessary in the case of some arable farms where, for generations there have been no fences, or where some rough land has been taken in and is now to be farmed much more intensively, grants should be made.
But we must guard against cases where, for example, a couple of rotten gateposts need to be replaced, or gates have to be provided. It would not be fair to use the taxpayers' money for such work. I believe that my hon. Friend said that to attract grant the cost of the work must be£100 or more. What I want to be sure about when considering fences is that£20 worth of fencing will not be added to the cost of another job to make up a total of£100 or more. Can my right hon. Friend make that point clear and explain whether fencing will be

treated as a job on its own, or whether it can be thrown in with anything else as a makeweight? I do not want anybody to be disappointed about this matter.

Mr. Amory: It is possible for a number of schemes to have a collective effect; if there is£20 worth of fencing,£20 worth of something else, and so on, if the total is about£100, it would rank for consideration—but only for consideration. That is the safeguard in this case. We should not give a grant in cases where the work involved was merely the repair of neglect. That is the point about which my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) was so keen. I am grateful to him for the way in which he welcomed the restriction that we are making to the terms of the Schedule.
He wishes us to go a little further, but at least we have gone some way towards doing what he wants. I can assure him that the case which he instanced—of the man who delays repairing his hedge and seeks to do it later—would not rank for grant under the Bill. The provision refers to making and improvement, and the word "improvement", as I define it, would mean providing something definitely of a higher standard than that which existed but had fallen into neglect, certainly in the tenant's period of occupation.
These matters must be looked at individually. The intention of my Department is to see that no unfair advantage shall be taken of the public funds which are available. I would remind my hon. Friend that this work will be done by the Agricultural Land Service, which keeps a very even balance between the counties, so he should have no fear upon that score. The Amendment restricts in a useful way what can be done under the Schedule itself, and I think that it should be helpful.

Mr. Paget: I find the Minister's interpretation a little odd. How, in any ordinary use of language, can one say that to cut and lay a ragged fence is not to improve that fence? I fail to understand how that can be. I do not see why all this concern arises. Is there one item in the Schedule that may not be necessitated and for which the need may not arise by reason of past neglect?

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Third Schedule.—(PROVISIONS AS TO PIG INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.)

Amendments made: In page 26, line 22, after "production", insert "marketing".

In line 23, after "manufacture", insert "marketing".—[Mr. Amory.]

7.21 p.m.

Mr. Amory: I beg to move. That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The objects of the Bill and its main provisions have received a wide measure of support from both sides of the House and I shall not take up the time of the House by advocating them afresh. In his speech on Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T'. Williams) said that he and his hon. Friends would seek to improve the Bill in Committee, and he guaranteed that they would make no attempt to delay its passage. The right hon. Gentleman has faithfully kept that promise.
I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Gentlemen for the helpful and constructive suggestions that they have made from both sides of the House during the passage of the Bill, so far. As a result, we have found it possible to make a number of improvements, and the discussions we have had will help us considerably when we come to administer the Bill.
I am conscious that the Bill is not perfect in the eyes of all hon. Members. It would be surprising if a Measure as bold and as far-reaching, as I believe this Bill to be, did not encounter criticism. Nevertheless, I think that all will agree that the Bill will make a practical. and I think a decisive, contribution to meeting the fundamental needs of the industry, which I described on Second Reading as "confidence" and "capital".
Confidence for forward planning is the purpose of the long-term assurances, provisions for which are contained in the Bill. One or two hon. Members, I was surprised to hear, saw the long-term assurances as a threat to the industry. I could not follow that argument, nor I think did the Committee as a whole. The effect is exactly the opposite. Under the 1947 Act, which we on this side of the House supported, hon. Gentlemen opposite empowered the Government to

reduce the guaranteed prices by any amount they thought fit after any particular annual review.
Under the Bill, the Government will only be able to do that within quite strict limits. It really cannot be seriously contended that a Measure that imposes upon the Government such an important limitation of their discretion in reducing the guaranteed prices can be designed or intended as a means of withdrawing support for agriculture. I doubt whether hon. Gentlemen who put that view forward convinced even themselves that it was so.
"Capital" is the theme of Part II which provides grants for farm improvements and amalgamations. The scheme rests on the realistic basis of an economic unit, that is, a farm which provides the occupier with a decent livelihood. If the farm is already economic, the improvement grants are intended to bring a better return to the occupier for his efforts and from his capital. If the farm is an uneconomic unit at present, the grants will be approved, if the schemes are of the right type and if they will have the effect of turning that holding into an economic one. In the last resort, the grants will assist to create economic holdings by amalgamation. By opening the way to more economic and efficient production the grants should, in the long term. reduce the necessity for such a high level of subsidy support and therefore should be of benefit to the taxpayer.
I know there has been criticism that the Bill does not go further than that to help the uneconomic holding. I am thinking now of the case that was quoted of the essentially uneconomic farms or part-time holdings which are often, and probably generally, farmed by very hard-working men who, financially, are having an uphill task. One is. of course, sympathetic to these cases, but it would be wrong to allow public money to be injected for the improvement of holdings which, after the expenditure of public money, still could not be made paying propositions. We have to remember that the object of the scheme is to create self-sufficient and well-equipped farm holdings.
I have referred to the administration of the scheme. I think we are all aware that it will be by no means a simple matter. We are breaking new ground,


and we have to be prepared to experiment a certain amount because of that. I would warn hon. Gentlemen that in some cases we shall have to take a stern view and that we shall no doubt disappoint some applicants. On the other hand, I hope that we shall be able to satisfy many more. In solving this administrative problem we shall lean heavily on the committee to which I have referred and of which Lord St. Aldwyn is chairman. That committee is holding its second meeting this week.
We shall also rely, most properly, on the advice of our county agricultural executive committees, which consist of practical men who know as well as anybody can know the needs of the industry. I am sure that the farm improvement grants will prove of real assistance to owners and occupiers who want to improve the permanent equipment of their holdings and who do not find it easy at present to meet the whole cost of doing so.
Now I would say a word about Part III. I am glad to find that there is general agreement that the provisions for the Pig Industry Development Authority are sensible. They are almost entirely the recommendations put forward by the Re-organisation Commission. The only point on which we have not been able to agree completely, is about the detailed composition and constitution of the Authority. As I have said, I am anxious that the Authority should not be too large. I am particularly anxious that it should be set up as soon as possible. It will have a challenging task; to make the British pig industry as efficient as that of any of our oversea competitors. In some ways we have here about twenty years' leeway to make up.
The Bill greatly strengthens the foundations for a stable and efficient agricultural industry. It is based on, and a development of, the Agriculture Act, 1947. I am sure that all sides of the House share the desire to see British agriculture a virile and progressive industry. That is what I believe it is today; an industry ready and able to apply new technical skills and new equipment in line with the advances in knowledge which are now at its disposal. It is because I am confident that this Bill will

contribute practically to that end that I commend it with confidence to the House.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I do not intend to detain the House for more than a few moments to share in the hymn of praise of the right hon. Gentleman for this Measure. There have, and always will be, different points of view about a Measure like this. This one consists of three parts. The first part is supposed to deal with long-term guarantees. The right hon. Gentleman said, quite rightly, that he could not understand how anybody could think that the guarantees in this Measure are not stronger than those contained in the 1947 Act. I will not argue the point at this late stage, except to repeat what I said on Second Reading.
Under the 1947 Act, in about nine years the average under-recoupment for increased costs of production ranged between£12 million and£13 million per annum. By the new long-term arrangements it would be permissible—whether or not it is probable is quite another thing —within the meaning of Clauses 2 and 3, with the proper percentages, to under-recoup by about£29 million or£30 million per annum, and still rigidly observe the letter of the law.
I shall not attempt to destroy the confidence that I tried to build up in the years between 1945 and 1951. Instead, I say as I said on Second Reading; if the farming community is happy with the new long-term guarantees, I am happy, too. I hope that its confidence will be renewed and maintained, and that it will continue with its campaign for increased efficiency and greater competitive powers as the years go on. So much for Part I.
I think it is perfectly true to say that those of us who watched, in particular in the 'twenties and 'thirties, the slow decay of agriculture in every conceivable respect from buildings downwards, will always welcome a Measure that is calculated to bring new life, new movement and modernity to an industry neglected for so many decades. Part II will go some way towards that. I know that£50 million sounds a lot of money, but ten years is a long time, and unless—as the right hon. Gentleman appears to have said at Norwich, and as the Lord Privy Seal said in his own constituency of Saffron Waldron the other day—the grants are to


be confined to small and medium farms, even£5 million per annum will not go very far for improvement schemes of the kind referred to in the Second Schedule.
Nevertheless, it is a start, just as the Hill Farming Act of 1946 was a start. That Act has been extended twice already, and I think that it has justified its existence completely. I therefore wish well of Part II of the Bill. I hope that Lord St. Aldwyn and his Committee will devise ways and means of seeing that the administration of it is sound and solid, that little or no part of this£5 million a year is wasted, and that the maximum part goes to those small farms that are in urgent need of it.
All I can say of Part III is that it is a pity that we did not have a Pig Development Authority a quarter of a century ago. But those were the years when, of course, we had not any Labour Governments, so we could not expect a development authority twenty-five years ago. I compliment the Minister on having set up the Commission, on having approved its major recommendation, and on having finally embodied that recommendation in this Bill. I agree that it ought to bring about a profound improvement in the breeding, the feeding, and the marketing of our pigs. Does the right hon. Gentleman wish me to give way?

Mr. Amory: I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman—I did not really mean to do so—but I have been doing a mathematical calculation, and I believe that there have been two Labour Governments in the last quarter of a century.

Mr. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. In 1924 we had a Labour Government which consisted of 192 Members out of 600-odd. Did he expect us to perform miracles with such a minority Government, when any day of the week the Conservative and Liberal Parties could have bowled us out, as they did after about nine months? We had another minority Government from 1929 to 1931 which could have been bowled out as and when it suited our opponents, and they bowled us out when it did suit them. The only majority Government that we ever had was in 1945, and we set the pace, particularly in agriculture, where we rebuilt, or saw the rebirth of a confidence which agri-

culture had not known in a century of Conservative and Liberal Government. However, that is off the mark.
We welcome the Bill, we wish it well, and if our enthusiasm for Part I is not equivalent to that of some, that is only because we are willing to wait and to hope for the best. If it works out as the right hon. Gentleman thinks and hopes it will, we shall be as happy as he. That is why, from the first moment, we have never had any desire other than to see the Bill on to the Statute Book as soon as possible.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Baldwin: I must congratulate my right hon. Friend on his strength in having convinced the Government that the continuation of our agriculture at its present high level is necessary. I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) will admit that conditions from 1945 to 1950 were completely different from those of 1950 onwards. In a time of world shortages it was easy to give guaranteed prices and so on, but when there are world surpluses piling up it says a great deal for my right hon. Friend that he was able to convince the Government that a prosperous agriculture industry is necessary for our economic health.
I am sure that the Government will realise in future that although there is cheap food to be bought from abroad, it still has to be paid for, and that if we go back to that system of buying cheap food from abroad the more will we increase our balance of payments difficulties. My right hon. Friend knows that I have sometimes been somewhat critical, but I hope that he will accept my congratulations, knowing that I do not offer them unless I really mean them.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I wish that I could agree with the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) that this Bill is a charter which will, in fact, provide us with a high level of agricultural production. I do not think that. I believe that its operation will be pretty disastrous to British agriculture, and I will say why.
In agriculture, production moves or varies with two costs. If the cost of land is high and the cost of labour is low we get a high production per acre and a low


production per man. That is peasant agriculture. Where the cost of land is low and the cost of labour is high we get a small production per acre and a very large production per man. That is prairie agriculture. We are somewhat between those two extremes. The cost of labour in this country is pretty high. It is not quite as high as in the Americas. but it is on the very high side. The cost of land is cheap; in my view, it is far too cheap, relatively speaking.
If we were to leave the natural forces to play—if, in fact, we opened our frontiers to the free importation of food, I believe that our agricultural production under the free play of economic forces would work out at about half or less than half of what it stands at present. I do not believe it is right to do that, because I think for social, health and defence reasons it is extremely important that we should have a healthy and prosperous countryside. Agriculture from England's point of view is a public service as much as an industry.
Therefore, for reasons which are not economic, it is highly important that we should maintain a level of production in agriculture which is not an economic level. I do not think we are doing this. Monetary guarantees are worth only what money is worth, and if the value of money is continually declining, it is not even necessary to provide in the Bill a percentage cut in prices which can be applied each year. Automatically we are applying in addition the cut that comes from depreciating money.
Since the war we and many other nations have chosen full employment, and we have found that full employment involves rising prices. Ten years ago I said that full employment inevitably would involve rising prices and that so long as we had full employment we would have rising prices. I can only say that I said that in this House ten years ago, and everywhere in the world I have been proved right. I still believe that to be so. If we are having rising prices—and agriculture here depends upon support other than economic support—the support which we pretend to provide is not a support at all.
The Germans, for instance, have found this to be true. They have linked their social insurance figures not to a monetary

sum but to a proportion of the national wealth. That, to my mind, is the only form of guarantee that really matters. is agriculture to retain its share of the national cake? Is it to retain its slice, or is that slice to be taken away from it? I think we ought to see what has been happening. I quoted these figures in Committee, but I think they will bear quoting again because they are important. In 1948 agriculture's slice of the national income was 2·9 per cent. Up till 1952 it remained stable at 2·9 per cent. In 1952 the last labour price fixing began to work itself out. From 1952 the size of agriculture's slice was falling every year. In 1953 it was 2·8 per cent., in 1954 2·4 per cent., in 1955 2·3 per cent. and in 1956 2·3 per cent.
In four years since we have had the Conservative Party in charge of agriculture, agriculture has lost one-quarter of its slice. Is that because it has not been doing its share in terms of productivity? Has it done less than its share to increase the national productivity? That is indeed quite the opposite to the truth. The figures are these. If we take 1948 as 100, agriculture in 1952, which was the point at which its slice began to dwindle, was 120, and in 1956 productivity had gone up to 140; whereas if we take industry as a whole, in 1952 the figure was 109 and in 1956 the figure was 120 and actually declining. Therefore, in terms of increased productivity, agriculture during this period has done about twice as well as industry as a whole. Yet during that time its slice of the national cake has been reduced by a quarter.
Surely those are very ominous figures which should provide us with some sort of warning as to what has happened, a warning of a real state of affairs which has been disguised by monetary figures that have been going up, expressed in money which has been worth less and less. Let us think for a moment how that has happened. Of course, the first reason is inflation. In the light of Government policy, does anybody imagine that is going to be less this year? We have seen a run of wage increases provoked by Government policy, and we have seen a Budget which, whatever else it is designed to do, is certainly not designed to reduce prices. I do not think that any reasonable man can have any doubt but that prices


are going up faster this year than they did last year.
What happens? The idea here is that agriculture's increase in efficiency should go to the consumer in terms of reduced prices. That, of course, is the Liberal idea, the laissez-faire idea, the basis of the free trade philosophy. I myself think that it is an extremely bad idea. This is, of course, controversial, but my own view about this has always been that results of increased efficiency in industry should go in increased wages and increased profits, as high a proportion as possible of which should be retained as the means of recapitalising the industry, and that if, in fact, one disposes of one's increased efficiency by distributing it to the consumers, the system will go into unemployment. That is a proposition of economics on which there could be much debate.
There are, however, two propositions which, I venture to suggest, cannot be subject to very much dispute. First, industry as a whole has not applied the laissez-faire, theoretical idea. in fact, in industry, taken as a whole, wages and profits have increased at a much faster rate than efficiency has increased, with the result that prices have gone up; prices have gone up to pay higher wages and to pay higher profits. I am not complaining in the least about profits in this context, because they are the savings of industry for new capitalisation. The process has, in fact, been in reverse; the increased efficiency and more has not been passed on to the consumer but has been consumed by the industry.
My second proposition is that if we condemn one industry to pass its increased efficiency on to the consumer in terms of lower prices, while leaving the rest of industry to absorb within itself its increased efficiency, we condemn the first industry, agriculture, to decline. We condemn it to decline because it would be less profitable than the industries which retain their increases in efficiency. It will have to pay wages lower than those paid by industries which use their increased efficiency to pay higher wages. This is precisely what we see happening. The level of employment in agriculture has fallen. Since this Government have been in, it has fallen by about 100,000. That is a loss to agriculture, and that in spite of the fact that conscription has been used,

to a very considerable extent, as a method for keeping people in agriculture. The deferment system has been used for that up to now, and, as conscription goes, so we shall lose men from agriculture even faster and our industry will decline even faster.
Capital has not been available for agriculture. This is recognised in the Bill, Part II of which does no more really than provide for an artifically low interest rate for farm capital—that is what it really boils down to—because it is necessary to try to attract more capital to a declining industry. I do not think that it will be successful. I believe that the capitalisation of the industry, whilst this method may help, will not occur, simply because agriculture has become a much less attractive investment than other industry. In the main, one will get large accretions of capital to agriculture only when agriculture is being used as a by-product of tax evasion, such as we have, indeed, seen for some time already.
I am very anxious about the future. I have been brought up in the countryside, and I love it. It will be a tragedy if we see a declining countryside, but we are already in the first phase. Milk is again being poured away. Potatoes are rotting. As for eggs, I am not sure what is happening to them, but I think that they are rotting too, not because people cannot eat them, but because people cannot afford them. Do farmers really not remember the last time?
The essential lesson here is that we cannot plan and have a free market. The decline of agriculture from 1952 has gone with the effort to introduce a free market. It is not a real free market. It is a bogus free market. The losses are concealed by inflationary prices. The thing drifts into a worse and worse position, which eventually becomes recognisable as bankruptcy.
I was a member of a Lucas Committee on Agricultural Marketing. I believe that we can have a planned level of agricultural production in England only on the contract basis. Let us remember that if we are to have anything like the present level, it must be a planned level; it cannot be the economic level, since that is only about half the present level. It must be a planned level, based on the contract system. We must have agricultural disposal boards which will purchase the


product which we as a country are in fact financing, which will provide a proper marketing system to take both the home product and purchase what is necessary to make up the national requirement from abroad and no more than is necessary, and average the price to the consumer. Upon that basis, we can succeed.
On this sort of basis of compromise between a free market and a planned market, with guarantees which have the appearance of guarantees but, in an inflationary situation, are not real guarantees, agriculture has gone a good way down the road to disaster. After all, the loss of one quarter of its share of the national cake in four years is ominous. If the process is allowed to continue, it will go on and on until agriculture finds itself much as it was between the wars.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I find it difficult to follow the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), because the more engaging his delivery the less convincing his economics. There was so much in his speech that it would need a wiser mind than mine to answer it and much longer time than I can afford.
The hon. and learned Member might find some of the answers to his questions in the F.A.O. publication, "Agriculture in the World Economy," which has some interesting conclusions on the relationship between the population working in agriculture and income. I visited Germany last summer and my impression in talking to the Germans was that they rather envied our agricultural policy and thought it well suited to our economy. I met Germans who were particularly interested in the methods of support that we used. The thesis that there is a necessary link between the percentage of agriculture's share and the total national income is really a false one. The hon. and learned Member's argument depends largely upon that and I do not regard it as a valid hypothesis.
The purpose of the Bill is to make a three-pronged advance towards maximum economic food production, for which there is great scope. We have heard a lot about under-recoupment. My impression is that too much use has been made of that word and insufficient attention paid

to the possibilities of the saving of cost in food production.
Some simple statistics are available. if one hour were saved daily on every farm of under 100 acres, the value of the saving would be about£12 million a year. If a farmer could so rearrange the labour on a larger farm that he could save the services of a whole man, he would be saving£400 a year at the very least—it would be nearer£500 a year—and he would be getting into a capital saving of£8,000 to£10,000. These are big potential figures and I believe that by the combination of work study, which was mentioned often enough in Standing Committee, allied to well-thought-out improvements, a great deal of saving in those directions can be made.
If we had 100 per cent. cost-plus farming, which some hon. Members opposite have been advocating, I believe that we would remove all the incentive to have a progressive and efficient industry. I think that the road to 100 per cent. cost-plus is a road straight to disaster. I am fortified in that belief by the astonishing economies that the pressure of urgency forces one to discover. I know plenty of farms on which, as a result of things like work study, one suddenly sees—generally on a neighbour's farm and rarely on one's own—that a saving can be made. At a glance, a gentleman who visited my farm last week, during my absence, made a suggestion by which, I think, we can save one whole set of wages. I am sure that there is great scope in this direction.
The Bill will give an impetus to that kind of development. Part I makes for stability. If one knows the likely trend for the next four to five years, one can make a plan and carry it through. Part II makes for much greater efficiency. The improvement grants should stimulate a long overdue capital investment, particularly in the smaller and less well off farms, where relatively little has been done since, I would say, as far back as 1870.
The crux of the matter is the question of what, in practice, will be an economic unit. That is a supremely important issue. In the long term, it will inevitably mean the amalgamation of a good many small, uneconomic holdings. That has sometimes been said to be inimical to the small farmer, but there is confusion


here. I do not believe that in the long run the small farmer will be assisted in any way by the perpetuation of holdings which, in effect, will condemn him or his successors to a peasant servitude. The best way of protecting the small farmers will be to follow a policy which enables every holding to be economically viable.
The Cambridge University School of Agriculture has this year produced an interesting report, "The Family Farm". It points out, broadly speaking, that in so far as acreage or scale is any test at all, it rather seems that as a result of modern developments, what formerly sufficed on 40 acres now needs about half as much again—in other words, 60 acres —to produce an economic unit. This conclusion is, of course, general, because soils, sizes and the system of farming vary.
In 43 out of 143 cases investigated it was found that farms failed to reach an economic livelihood, which was considered to be£500, or a rather lower figure than other more recent advisers have suggested. It was pointed out that three-quarters of the failures come from inadequate output. Therefore, the problem that the Minister faces in implementing the Bill is how to increase output on small farms.
We know that, traditionally, it can be done on most farms by bringing in more raw materials in the shape of feeding stuffs and most small farms can expand their production in that way. As the Bill is implemented, the difficulty will be to strike the right balance as to the degree of reliance that can be placed upon feeding stuffs which are not grown on the farm. Within our coastline, it is traditional for the big farms which grow grain, and so on, not to consume it all on the farms but to sell the surplus which goes to supply their smaller neighbours.
The difficulty that we have to face is the ease and the danger of being able to import feeding stuffs and thereby swell our gross output of food excessively. That is one of the dangers that must be watched in the production of eggs or of any of the grain consuming animals. The keynote of our policy is to emphasise and to swing the balance in favour of home-grown feeding stuffs, and particularly grass; but that is always more difficult for the small farmer.
The Cambridge investigation said quite clearly that:
Pigs and poultry provide an alternative means of raising output and have the advantage that they take up little room and not need reduce output from any other part of the farm but—
The important point, however, is that:
If widely adopted as a means of raising output and income on any large number of farms, this would result in a substantial increase in feeding stuff imports and of Exchequer grants to support the prices of fat pigs and eggs.
That, clearly, is the danger that we face in implementing the Bill. One fundamental fact of agriculture is that it is not wise to call into production food which people will not eat. That is the danger and that is the trouble that has temporarily overtaken the hen. The hen has been laying more eggs than the British consumer wants to eat.
The answer to that, I would suggest, is to look more to the consumer and to stimulating he consumption of eggs, which is about four a head weekly on the average at the moment, but which, easily and very cheaply, could be increased to five. If we all ate slightly more eggs, no doubt that would soon remove the problem of surplus egg production.
Part III of the Bill, relating to the pig industry and to the products of the pig, emphasises the importance of marketing and of presenting the food in a way the consumer wants. I believe that in that there is great scope for expansion and advance. The industry as a whole will have to struggle keenly in the future to hold its share of the housewife's purchasing power, because a great many other products and industries are competing for it.
It has been said that not much will flow from this£50 million towards improvements over the next ten years. I believe that to be quite wrong, for the reasons I have indicated. I should like to contrast, as, indeed, we shall all have a chance of contrasting, the good that that will do compared with what I thought was a much larger expenditure without a corresponding benefit—the£100 million injected by the Price Review of the last Labour Government. in 1947. There was not always smooth progress with that. There was rather a panic in 1947. I can remember the urge to the farmers to grow more, and that£100 million was


injected into the Price Review to encourage production. It went in on current account. I should have liked to have seen much of it go into capital account, as this Bill proposes that the£50 million shall.

Mr. Champion: Would the hon. Member not agree that the amount then deliberately injected found its way into mechanisation on the farms, and into the farmers' capital, and not necessarily the fixed capital, and that that brought about this great increase of production of which he is speaking? Surely that was immensely important.

Mr. Hill: I quite agree with the hon. Member, except that I would say it put the emphasis too much on machinery. My own view is that British farms are rather over-mechanised and ill-equipped and under-equipped with fixed equipment, the reason being that, broadly speaking, the occupier buys machinery.
The figures show that on the average through the years about£50 million annually has gone on machinery purchases and that on the average between only£22 million and£25 million annually has gone on buildings and equipment. I think that the emphasis has been rather too much on machinery and not sufficiently on layout, or what I call improving the workability of farms. If they are hard to work, then wages and other expenses are wastefully incurred.
I suspect that we shall find over the years that we shall get very good value from this£50 million. I have a special affection for this Bill, because it is in one respect an answer, if not to a prayer, at any rate to a maiden speech, because I suggested two years ago that we should reach a stage when there would have to be Government policy for improving farms by means of reconditioning grants, thereby helping to cheapen our production and to reduce our calls on the taxpayer by bringing our unit costs down nearer to those of some of our competitors overseas. I believe that this Bill will enable that to be done and that we shall succeed in making steady and, I would go so far as to hope, spectacular progress.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Watkins: I am sure that the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) will forgive me if I do not follow

him all the way of his speech. I am very glad that his prayer has been answered, and I wonder what advice he can give me, because I have made many prayers in this House, prayers which, I hope, will be answered by this Bill, which, I hope, will answer some of the problems which I propose to mention now.
I have had the privilege to work upon this Bill right from its beginning, and I have gained much knowledge as it has progressed, and I welcome the advice and guidance given to me when I moved Amendments to it, some of them by myself, by the Minister or the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, or by my hon. Friends. I think that, generally speaking, it is a good Bill, and I welcome Part II, which is the only part on which I shall speak, with enthusiasm because I represent a part of this country, Mid-Wales, which always welcomes any support given to getting goodness out of our soil.
A good deal has been done by previous Acts of Parliament for hill farming and livestock rearing. One must not think of Mid-Wales as having only upland farming, and parts of this Bill will apply to Mid-Wales, but I am rather dubious about the effects of some of the Clauses.
Clauses 12 and 13, dealing with grants, I welcome of course, but I am not so much taken with what has been said about uneconomic holdings. Uneconomic holdings are of different categories in different parts of the country, An uneconomic holding in Mid-Wales, I ask the Minister to remember, is uneconomic only because it is so far from any services which can be rendered to it. The basic services simply are not there. There is a good deal that can be done about that administratively, and the problem can be considered from the administrative standpoint.
Moreover, the standards of uneconomic holdings differ throughout the country. In my part of Wales farmers have not been able to plough back their earnings into buildings because they had to buy their farms when large estates were sold, and since buying them they have been paying back their mortgages and have been doing so for a very long time, so they could not plough capital back into their holdings. I hope that in cases of that kind, where it is found that a holding


can become economic, it will be given support.
I am backed in that hope by an excellent Report by Professor Zucker-man's Committee, entitled "Forestry, Agriculture and Marginal Land", which has been recently issued. I have read several times with great interest the paragraphs dealing with the problem of uneconomic farms, particularly the paragraph headed "Subsidised improvements", which deals with hill farming improvements and livestock rearing. The same arguments which that great Committee used about those schemes can be applied to the schemes under this Bill. One of the things that the Committee said was:
However, these provisions are difficult to administer because there is frequently a very wide range of doubt as to how much income a particular holding would be capable of producing if circumstances were altered by capital improvement.
That is a very important statement, and in weighing it a number of things must be considered.
We had a good discussion in Standing Committee on part-time holdings and I emphasise again their importance in Mid-Wales in relation to forestry. All reports, whether Government White Papers, reports from the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire or reports by other experts all emphasise this point. I hope that the Minister will advise his Committee to encourage the development of part-time holdings in that area. The late Professor Ashby, in an excellent document on Welsh agriculture, published in 1934, said:
Total wealth of a community or the average wealth or the income per head of population or per family are not the only tests of the material well-being.
That is a very important point. It is not merely a question whether a farm is economic or uneconomic. The people living on the farm are as important to the community as the produce.
A great deal will be said in future about amalgamations. No doubt the Minister, in the goodness of his heart, encourages purely voluntary amalgamation, but I hope that he will keep a critical eye on amalgamations in general in Mid-Wales. I was glad to have the assurance from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that a great deal of ranching will not take place. I hope that when

the Minister scrutinises any scheme that is brought before him for his approval he will realise that this is not merely a question of adding one field to another. Schemes should be scrutinised from the point of view of their general merits and the general economy of future planning. It will be quite wrong if grants are given and amalgamations of some holdings take place only to leave a part-time worker to try to get a living on a holding which will receive no improvement grants at all. I am sure that the people of Mid-Wales agree that the emphasis should be on the grants and not so much on amalgamation itself.
The sum of£50 million for ten years that is provided by the Bill is generally welcomed and, as the Minister has said, there will no doubt be a deluge of applications by 1st September. Will there be an order of priority for these applications? The Minister said that there might be some urgent cases. If there are urgent cases at all, they will be those of people who may lose their milk licences because their buildings do not come up to certain standards.
There has been a tendency of late to allocate funds for marginal production schemes on a county basis. I am informed that when that allocation has been met no funds are available until the next financial year. I hope that that information is wrong and that the Minister will assure the House that that kind of county basis will not be operated under the Bill. After having said so much about Part II in Committee, in the course of watching the interests of people about whom I am very much concerned, and interests which both Front Benches recognise as very proper, I wish the Bill a speedy passage in another place. I hope that the Minister, after hearing the welcome given to the Bill on both sides of the House, will bring the date of implementation of the Bill forward from 1st September to a much earlier date.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. du Cann: There can be no doubt that agricultural interests, including farm workers, farmers and those who supply machinery for the land, think the Bill excellent, and I should like to add my congratulations to those already received by my right hon. Friend on its introduction. It follows a White Paper published some time ago, and it reflects very great credit on the Minister,


the Ministry and the negotiating unions that agreement was reached on these long-term assurances for agriculture.
There have been certain criticisms of detail, but I do not think that in the context of approval for the Bill as a whole they are of great importance. Some little time ago one heard a great deal from individual farmers about the need for a long-term agricultural policy, and criticism of what has been called in the House the annual "horse trading fair" at the time of the Annual Price Review. There is none of that now. Farmers and farm workers are looking to the future with a great deal of confidence.
There is one point which requires bearing in mind in the context of Part I. It was made in effect by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), whom I am sorry is not now in the House, because I should have liked to have commented on some of his remarks. Farmers are realists. They understand and can cope with short-term fluctuations in market prices, but they demand long-term stability, and one is bound to wonder whether, for all their confidence, they have it in the Bill, because of the inflationary situation. We hope very much that the inflationary situation will not be with us for many more years, but I doubt whether any hon. Member would be prepared to bet money on that, whatever Government might be in power. This should not be a matter of party politics. It is one of great national concern.
Although a great deal of uncertainty has been removed from the farmers about the future, I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton who said in effect that farming is certainly not an inflationary industry, unlike most other industries in the country, and farm workers are not getting their fair share of the national cake at present. The whole House recognises that they have done a magnificent job since 1939, and the whole House wishes to see agriculture continue to prosper. Whether it has had a fair share of prosperity in the context of inflation since 1939 is another matter.
As regards Part II, many hon. Members are delighted to see the principle of the Hill Farming Acts, as it were, coming down the hill which, as the hon. Gentle-

man the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) rightly said, is something we have wanted for a long time. This part of the Bill pleases me most. I hope we shall see a substantial number of amalgamations, bearing in mind the safeguards rightly asked for by the Welsh Members, whose point of view I understand. Clearly, it is necessary and right that there should be amalgamations. It is in the interests of the people who own, work on, and manage uneconomic holdings that they should amalgamate. I agree that amalgamation should not be compulsory, but I hope that amalgamations will take place in the interests of the people working on the farms.
On farm improvements generally, I must agree that the amount of£5 million per annum over ten years is a substantial sum of money, whatever may be said to the contrary by some hon. Members. My main point relates to the fact that we are voting large sums of the taxpayers' money to be spent on agriculture, and it relates to the use of that money. My right hon. Friend said rightly that it would be necessary to take a stern view of applications made under Part II of the Bill. It is also hoped that the need for subsidies will be reduced by the amount of money to be spent under this Part of the Bill, and that farms will become more and more efficient as time passes.
We are not self-sufficient in many commodities. For instance, we want more beef to be produced. I cannot help wondering, however, whether as a nation, as a Government, as a House, we are not in love with the idea of maximum production for its own sake. Let us consider what will happen in the County of Somerset, perhaps in my own constituency. Traditionally in Somerset, we are milk producers, and I know that many farmers will seek grants under this Bill for improving their holdings. This will mean, in effect, that they will produce more milk. Eggs have been mentioned and also pigs. We know that from time to time we produce too much pig-meat, and everyone is aware of the trouble over eggs. What will happen as a result of this Bill is that we shall have greater production of those commodities, and what shall we do with the surplus?
In that connection, I want to make a suggestion which I believe it is appropriate to make, because it has been said already this evening that skimmed milk


is being thrown away in England. It is shocking that this should be done when one-third of the children in the world suffer from a lack of sufficient food. It is monstrous that we should be throwing away milk at such a time. The United Nations Children's Fund, which exists on voluntary contributions from Governments and individuals, in 1955 gave aid to some 32 million children in ninety countries. On looking up the records of that organisation's work this afternoon, I was horrified to discover that so much of the aid went to territories for which we in this country are responsible. They were territories in the British Empire and Commonwealth —the Dominions, the Colonies and some of the Trustee Territories.
Is it too much to hope that we should continue to encourage maximum production in this country to support British agriculture, to have the healthy and flourishing countryside we all want, and to use the surplus additional to our own needs to look after some of the children for whom we have a heavy responsibility in the Commonwealth and Empire and in other parts of the world? I hope this suggestion may find favour with the Government. since child nutrition is one of the objects of the United Nations Children's Fund.
To sum up, I think this is a good Bill in the context of British agricultural interests. I have some doubts about the inflationary future of this country, which made me have some doubts about the Bill. However, I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon it—indeed it is a matter for Parliamentary congratulation because it is an agreed Measure. Finally, I hope that my right hon. Friend will find an occasion to devote more thought to the disposal of our agricultural surplus, which must be worrying him very much.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Grimond: There are two points I want to put briefly to the Minister. The first is on the working of Part II of the Bill. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the suggestions put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) and others, because in my experience it would be of immense benefit to farmers if the work done by themselves were eligible for grant.
There is the argument that it might lead to abuses, but it would save the country far more money than if the abuses were tolerated. There is a tendency today not only to cut off one's nose to spite one's face, but to cut off one's whole face to make certain that one's nose does not get out of hand. In areas like mine, for contractors to be brought in to do work is sometimes a fantastically expensive way of doing it on small farms and crofts where a great deal of the work could be done by the farmers themselves.
If Part II of the Bill is to be of assistance in the part of the country that I know best it is essential to encourage co-operation between the small farmers when it comes to things like grids and roads, and to make it easy for them to co-operate. I think the officials of the Department could be of great help, as, indeed, they usually are. It is a point very much to be borne in mind.
Then it is very important to get quick decisions. When a man puts up a scheme he gets very disgruntled unless he gets an answer to this application reasonably soon. In addition, we have a very short working season and we want to get the work done in the summer, if it is done at all. Lastly, if it can be arranged for any payment to be made on account this can be of great help in suitable cases. I do not know whether that was raised in Standing Committee. Unfortunately, I did not take part in the Committee.
I want to turn, secondly, to the question of amalgamations. I do not know the procedure on this Bill sufficiently well to say if it is possible, but if it were possible to strike the word "amalgamations" out of the heading of Part II of the Bill I think it would have an important psychological effect on farmers.
The grants that are being given to help amalgamation are to improve farms and make better economic units. In my part of the country, the word "amalgamation" will cause a good deal of concern. Already, there is anxiety about farms. being put down to grass—big ranches, as one hon. Member said. I would play down the idea of amalgamation. Surely the whole purpose of this part of the Bill —and a very important purpose—is to create more economic units in accordance with what is possible in the part of the country concerned.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Bill did not apply to crofts. I think that that was a slip on his part. It may be prefectly true that Clause 16 does not apply to crofts, but I think he will agree that the Bill does apply to crofts. The only argument may be that no croft can qualify for a grant because it can never come up to the standards laid down under Clause 12 (3), but surely the Minister would not want that impression to get about. It would be disastrous if it reached the crofting counties.
I take it that the Bill does apply to crofts, and if that is so I think that it is unfortunate that they should be excluded from Clause 16. The help which that Clause gives is not very big, but there are few more important things in the Highlands, than, not necessarily amalgamating the crofts, but trying to get them into suitable holdings, better laid out, trying to expand the very small crofts and, in general, making them all better economic units. I ask the Minister to look at this. I do not think that the impression should go out that he is explicitly excluding crofting land from the grants that are available to make a better economic unit.
One thing which prevents a great deal of crofting land from being properly used is that the incoming crofter who takes over a new croft has to pay compensation. There is power under Clause 16 (2) to make a contribution towards the compensation for disturbance payable under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948. Compensation from crofters is not under that Act, but would the Minister see whether it is possible to extend those provisions to general compensation on the crofts? I have always been very much in favour of inserting the thin end of a wedge. There is always a great deal of criticism about this, but we should never have got anywhere with our legislation if someone had not had the courage initially to insert the thin end of a wedge. I do not want to see the crofts going down to grass and the districts being de-populated, because the people are leaving the land. I know full well, however, that crofting land in many places will have to be redistributed if it is to yield anything like a decent livelihood. That applies not only to crofting land, but also to many small owner-occupied holdings.
The time has come when the Minister and the Secretary for Scotland should consider inserting perhaps only the very thin end of the wedge in dealing with this matter. He may say that it is dealt with in other legislation, but I do not think it is. The Land Court had certain powers, it is true, over the organisation of districts, but as far as I know there is no power to make a grant to help the better lay-out of crofting land.
I do not ask the Minister to go into this tonight, but he might consider it with his colleagues with respect not only to crofting land, but to all land in the North of Scotland. As he has so often said, this Clause in the Bill is permissive and is applicable only to voluntary agreements. I think it is an admirable start and, having made that start, I hope he will not exclude crofters entirely from his proposals.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Vane: I welcome the support of the Leader of the Liberal Party for my plea to the Minister not to belittle the importance of the farmer's own work in operating Part II of the Bill. Although I have thanked him—not, he may think, as generously as was due—for introducing a standard charges system, I should like to repeat my warning that it would be unwise to lay too much importance on the standard charge procedure to meet the very big need and satisfy the many small farmers who have reason for their grievance in that in this sort of work they are less well treated than their bigger neighbours, who always think in terms of putting out their work to contract.
In the main, the Bill gives agriculture a big opportunity to strengthen its weakest feature, which. at the moment, is probably investment in fixed equipment. The hon. Member for Derbyshire. South-East (Mr. Champion), who was agreeing with my last sentence, suggested earlier that the injection of capital ten years ago probably laid the foundation of the mechanisation of British agriculture. That is perfectly true, and it was probably correct in the difficult times immediately after the war to start the investment in British agriculture at that end, but I wish we had reached this Bill a little earlier, because there is a ten-year gap between the first capital investment of which he spoke and this second


capital investment scheme; and that gap has been too wide.
This is not just an opportunity for the farmer and the land-owner, but is also an opportunity for the architect and the country builder, on whose skill will depend whether or not this money is well spent. Many country builders are rather antiquated in their outlook and are not as well versed in modern techniques or thinking enough about modern building materials as should be the case. As a result, they may be doing work which is too expensive for 1957.
In general, I hope that the result of this expenditure on fixed equipment will not be merely to cheapen work which would have been done in any case, but will also encourage those concerned to undertake new work which otherwise they would no have been able to consider. I hope that as a result we shall see a large number of farms not just repaired in various small ways but given, as it were, a complete new look and so changed that their production is made more efficient and cheaper.
It would be quite easy for this£50 million to be frittered away on odd jobs, all items just over£100, which my right hon. Friend mentioned as the minimum sum he would consider. It would be possible for the£50 million to be spent on fencing, and even then this country would not be well fenced. But in either case the country will get very poor value if that is allowed to happen. My right hon. Friend has said that he will be stern. I hope that he will be very stern and insist that the greater part of this large investment goes into work which otherwise could not be undertaken and which, as I say, will transform the working of a great many holdings.
In fairness to those who have to work in the field, my right hon. Friend must from the start give very clear instructions to the A.L.S. and other of his servants in contact with the farmers so that the hopes of people will not be raised and disappointed as their schemes are turned down. I hope that from the start they can be told what will be included and what will be excluded.
Following on what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), I hope that not too much of the money will be spent in increasing the

milk supply of this country. My hon. Friend wondered what would happen to the increasing milk supplies in Somerset. I make one suggestion, that in Somerset they should drink a little more of their milk and a little less of their cider—that is a remedy which lies in their own hands. Joking apart, it would be a tragedy if too much of this money were spent simply in making the milk supplies of this country even greater.
I wish to refer to the interpretation Clauses. This Bill is liberally supplied with interpretation Clauses: in fact, there are three. But they omit to define what has been the favourite expression of speakers from the Front Bench, "economic unit." Perhaps during the passage of this Bill through another place we may have a definition of these mystic words inserted in the Measure.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will refer to another definition. He skated round and avoided the issue when I raised it during the Second Reading debate, and I hope that he will not do so again now.
In the definition of agriculture he refers to the "use of land as grazing land, meadow land, osier land, market gardens and nursery grounds and the use of land as woodlands where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for other agricultural purposes." That phrase was inserted in the 1947 Act, because, I believe, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) was looking for a short way of describing shelter belts. But these words certainly mean a good deal more than that.
If one consults the dictionary one finds that "ancillary" means "subservient", "subordinate" and "auxiliary". Taking the meaning "auxiliary" and looking at the pattern of the English countryside, we find that in many areas there are British woodlands scattered among several farms in the same ownership. The area of the wood is less than the area under crops and grass and the capital investment in the woodland is less than in agricultural land. I should have thought that could be described as auxiliary or subordinate. In these cases such services as roads often. serve both side of the industry.
Since 1947, this question of the developing of agriculture and forestry together in many areas has come much more to the fore, even before the Zuckerman Report. Since the publication of that Report, I


should have thought that all doubts had been swept away. It is tragic that this Bill has not been more generous to forestry. There is this one mention of woodlands, and I think that before this Measure leaves the House the least we can expect is to be told from the Front Bench a little more about the extent of its application to woodlands. I do not think that that would be asking too much. If it is intended that all woods other than shelter belts shall be excluded, I hope that we may be told so and told at the same time that the Government intend to try to do something parallel.
Apart from that one criticism, I welcome the Bill. We have talked about a long-term policy for agriculture, but we have not done as much thinking about it as we have talked about it. Here is something which is really the fruits of proper and genuine thinking about long term policy, and I hope that it will have a speedy passage through its remaining stages and will bring the benefits it promises to this most important industry.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Dye: The Bill is like the proverbial curate's egg—good in parts. Parts of it might be very good, and others not so good. I have been present during all the stages of the Bill—Second Reading; Committee; Report and Third Reading—and I have had a chance to listen to the various speeches. I have been waiting for a chance to be able to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on one good speech during the whole course of the Bill, but so far I have not had that pleasure.
Just over a week ago I had the pleasure of listening to him speaking at the Pig and Bacon Show at Elmswell, Suffolk. He made a very good speech. He happened to make it from the same side of the table as I was sitting, and I was unexpectedly called upon to propose a vote of thanks to him for having made his speech.

Mr. Godber: The hon. Member did very well, too.

Mr. Dye: I thank the hon. Member for that compliment. It was, indeed, a very nice occasion. It was the kind of occasion where those with expert knowledge in the industry met those who were engaged in producing bacon pigs, and

where they could share their knowledge, both practical and academic. The show went off very well.
One of the failures of the Bill is that it is not so practical as it ought to be. It is plain that the Bill is a supplement to the 1947 Agriculture Act. The very first Section of that Act speaks of:
the provision of guaranteed prices and assured markets for…such part of the nation's food and other agricultural produce as in the national interest it is desirable to produce in the United Kingdom…
We have reached the stage when our production has gone beyond that point. The original Act was to guarantee prices for that portion of the nation's food which was produced at home. It was never the intention to subsidise in any way the production of food in this country for export to other countries.
This is the crucial difficulty in the present development of British agriculture about which the Bill does nothing at all; indeed, that part of the Bill which is designed to give grants to assist agriculture can make the situation worse. It was most noticeable that before we began the discussion of the Bill in Committee a meeting of the Farmers' Club was held at which Mr. Stephen Cheveley gave a paper entitled "Farm Capital Investment—How will the Government Proposals Work?" He raised this very question, and said:
Will self-sufficiency influence a decision? "—
to give grants to a particular farmer—
This could be a very controversial subject but I think we ought to discuss it because, quite soon, it will emerge when applications for grants are being considered. Let me illustrate what I mean by taking the extreme case of a poultry farm, or a pig unit, where a farmer is applying for investment aid and his production comes from purchased foodstuffs. Is there justification for using taxpayers' money

(a) to increase his efficiency at present levels of production, or
(b) to increase his production? "
We have asked those same questions over and over again in Committee and have never got an answer.
Is this a Bill to make our agricultural problems more acute by greater production of the commodities of which we already have too many? The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) made probably the best speech from the Government benches, because he tried to face the problem and he asked the Minister


to try to do so. We have been asking the Minister to do so all through the Committee, but he has not done so. He came forward with the suggestion that if there were greater production of food than we needed—milk, eggs, potatoes and other commodities—instead of selling them to other countries we should use them as our contribution to parts of the British Commonwealth where there are grave shortages of food. That problem exists most acutely in India. The Government have not faced that problem.
We made a suggestion when discussing an Amendment that it might be possible during the present period or a later period to enable old-age pensioners to have greater quantities of milk and eggs, free, if necessary, and for schoolchildren to have greater quantities of milk, eggs, bacon or potatoes, when these things are in great supply. The Government have no policy whatever for dealing with the greater production of these commodities which they are stimulating, and are stimulating at a greater cost to the taxpayer by way of subsidy than ever before.
When Government supporters came in they were going to reduce subsidies and taxation, but today, after six years of Tory Government, taxation for the purpose of supporting British agriculture is heavier and the subsidies are greater than ever they have been. Next year thy may be even greater. The indications arc that the price of cereals will be lower for 1957 than for 1956, and if it is, then the subsidy will be greater still. If there is a greater quantity of cheap cereals, British farmers will buy more and will produce more eggs, pork meat and such commodities. There is nothing in the Bill, or in any statement of Government policy so far, that shows that the Government are even aware of that situation, which is known to everybody in the country and is complained about even by our neighbours in Denmark, Holland and other countries who, in the past, have been dependent upon their exports of food for their living.
This is not a good Bill through and through, that is to say, if it is designed to meet the situation with which the country is now faced. I am not alone in that opinion. As has already been mentioned today, the Minister of Agriculture went to Norwich on Saturday

to speak at what I think they call an "Eastern Counties Agricultural Advisory Body" of some description of the Conservative Party. So they had a little hole-and-corner meeting in Norwich, not for Norwich people but for representatives from the whole of the Eastern counties. There was a resolution congratulating the Government on its policy as outlined in this Bill, but there was also an amendment criticising it and, believe it or not, with sixty-four people present and voting the resolution was passed by a majority of only twelve—

Mr. Godber: The whips were not out.

Mr. Dye: The whips were not out. What a brilliant idea that Tories, when they meet, should be looked after, shepherded by whips and not allowed free expression of opinion on agricultural matters in an agricultural area. We have the record in the Eastern Daily Press published today that when Conservatives meet to discuss this very Bill the congratulatory resolution is passed by only a narrow majority.
What were they concerned about? They were concerned about the first part of the Bill which continues, though in a restricted way, the guaranteed prices far agricultural products. These people are concerned that the Government's policy is one of what they call under-recoupments. Therefore, if I am a critic, I am not alone. There are twenty-six others to be gathered from the select of the Tory Party in the Eastern counties—and that after a really impressive speech by the Minister himself.
It is no wonder, therefore, that the benches opposite have been rather thin today—[Interruption.] The benches on this side, of course, are not full, but they have been fuller all day than the benches opposite. I wonder what any of the farmers' wives who have taken time off from the annual meeting of the Women's Institutes in another part of the city to listen to the debate here will think of the enthusiasm of the Tory Party for this Bill. They may well wonder why there are so few present when what is being claimed as the great charter for agriculture is being discussed.
This Bill is like the Tory Party. It is good only in parts, and one sometimes


has a job to find the good parts. The Conservative Party claims:
Through reduced costs of production the consumer and taxpayer will benefit, as well as the farmer.
By how much will this Measure reduce prices to the consumer? By how much will it reduce taxation? By how much will it benefit the farmer when, in the guaranteed prices during an inflationary period, there is a sliding-scale downwards? That is the great difficulty which the farming community has to face. As the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) said the other day, agriculture at present is a speculation. Hon. Members opposite may smile and sneer, but they cannot, of course, make a valid contribution to the discussion.
Therefore, although we have had a long discussion on this Bill, and although some of its aspects have received support on this side of the House, I hope that when it goes to another place its remaining defects may be rectified before it comes back to us.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Bowen: I prefer the optimistic sentiments expressed by the Minister to the pessimism of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I must say, too, that I found the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) somewhat depressing.
I rise to underline and supplement some of the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins). It is extremely important that the small farmer should be able to take advantage of Part II of the Bill and to carry out improvements particularly in relation to fixed equipment. It is important from his own point of view, and it is extremely important from the point of view of the industry and of the economy of the country. If the large farmer is to be able to take advantage of the Bill and the small farmer is not going to be able to do so, this will only aggravate the position which is already causing considerable anxiety.
If the small farmer is to be able to take full advantage of this Bill, and if he is going to have a fair share of the£50 million which this Bill involves, we shall have to look at two matters in particular—first, increased credit facilities, and second, the sympathetic administra-

tion of Part II. If there is no improvement in credit facilities, many small farmers who would gladly take advantage of Part II will find themselves unable to put forward schemes under this Part of the Bill.
I was pleased when the Minister told us in Committee that the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation and the Lands Improvement Company are going to streamline and simplify their procedure. This may do something to help in the provision of long-term loans, because it is to these officially inspired loan corporations that we can look for help in the matter of long-term loans. We should remember at the same time that last year the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation lending amounted to only£1,500,000–1 believe that figure is correct—which, in proportion to what will be needed to implement Part II of the Bill, is a very modest sum indeed.
As for short-term loans, the joint stock banks can probably meet that need. The greatest need of all is in the field of medium-term loans. I was very pleased to learn that the farmers' unions have been looking into this question and that they hope to put forward a scheme to assist in this direction. I hope that in so far as they have the power, they will give every possible assistance to the farmers' unions in formulating a scheme of this kind, because it is through the medium of a scheme of this kind that the small farmer will be able to take advantage of the Bill.
I should like to say a few words on my second point, namely, the sympathetic administration of Part II. I think it will be the duty of the Agricultural Land Service to give every possible assistance in formulating schemes. It is important that this should be done to prevent waste of public money, and it will be particularly important to the small farmer if he is to be in a position to put forward worth-while schemes.
I should like to see preference being given at the start to schemes which will assist the farmer in danger of losing his milk licence; there are many in that category in this country just now. I should like to see some preference being given in the expedition of approval of schemes where proposals for electrification are made. One of the difficulties with regard to the extension of electricity schemes is that unless the farmer is able


to take up a scheme when the board puts it forward, it may well be that the board will not return to his area for twelve or eighteen months, and valuable time will be lost. I hope, therefore, that, when the initial rush of applications is dealt with, those in the two categories I have mentioned will be given particularly sympathetic consideration.
The expression "economic units" has inevitably occurred several times in our discussions, and it has been emphasised that help to be given under Part II of the Bill is to be given to units which are economic or which can be made economic through reasonable assistance being given to them. The point has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor, that in the Mid-Wales Investigation Report there is a classification of farms within that area as either economic or uneconomic. That classification has caused considerable apprehension in Mid-Wales and in comparable areas.
I concede at once that some farms which have been put in the category of uneconomic are quite obviously correctly classified, but many described in the Report as uneconomic are, in the view of farmers in and around the area, economic or could certainly be made so by modest farm improvements being carried out. I hope that, when this scheme is administered, we shall not have anything like the rigid scheduling of farms into economic and uneconomic units as occurred in the Mid-Wales Investigation Report.
I hope also that when applications are considered, the social aspect of the matter will not be entirely overlooked in favour of the purely narrow agricultural interest. Neither the problem of the possible waste of social capital nor the possible aggravation of the trend towards rural depopulation should be overlooked. If these points which I have emphasised are borne in mind, Part II of the Bill can be of very considerable assistance in enabling the small farmer to play his part in producing unit costs of production.

9.14 p.m.

Sir L. Plummer: The hour is growing late, and I shall not traverse a great deal of the ground covered by the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen). I wish we had had more

thoughtful contributions from the Liberal Party during the Committee stage of the Bill.

Mr. Bowen: The reason for that was that I was the only Liberal Member on the Committee, and it clashed with a Departmental Committee on which I was serving, which I have been on for twelve months.

Sir L. Plummer: I did not want the hon. and learned Member to take offence at what I was saying. There are perfectly good reasons why hon. Members cannot attend Committees. For one thing, they have to earn their living. I was not complaining, but only saying that the hon. and learned Member's thoughtful contribution made me wish that it had been possible for him to attend. So long as Members are paid on a starvation level, it is difficult to find many with sufficient time to make a proper contribution to our discussions.

Mr. Bowen: The hon. Member does not appear to appreciate that my absence was not for the reason which he apparently suggests, but was because of my membership of another Committee.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Member, but we cannot pursue that point further. We are now on the Third Reading of the Bill.

Sir L. Plummer: I am sorry that that little propaganda which I was bringing into the debate in certain directions was misinterpreted and I apologise to the hon. and learned Member if I have said anything which is untoward or has upset him.
I wish now to make a few observations on the Bill, which has been an interesting one for us to debate as we have dealt with it over the last few weeks. I beg the Minister not to believe that the Bill by itself will clear away a good deal of the uncertainty and worry that exists in agriculture today. I think that it was the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), in a useful contribution on Report, who referred to the fact that the Bill had had the unqualified welcome of farmers and farmworkers alike. That obviously is true, because the hon. Member must have experience of that in the part of the country which he represents.
In that part of the country in which I live and where I practise farming, however, there is a great deal of concern about the future of agriculture, particularly in the next few years. I have not found overwhelming support for the Bill or, indeed, an indication on the part of farmers who are worried that they believe that by itself the Bill will relieve them of their worries and make their future clear and discernible.
Indeed, they have grounds for their worries. We discussed many times in Committee the fact that, despite the guarantees, the milk producer is finding that his price is falling below the normal guarantee figure which he expects. I know that the Government answer is that, unfortunately, we are producing a surplus of milk. The latest estimates are that we are now to have this year a surplus of about 200 million gallons. I beg the Minister to appreciate that this is an artificial surplus and one which has been created as a result of the Government's fiscal policy. We cannot have a surplus when there are people who are going without. The Government's determination to raise the price of milk to the consumer has caused this surplus for which the industry is now suffering.
I read the other day that the reason why skimmed milk is being poured into a ravine in the West of England is because it is not an economic proposition to sell it below 4d. a gallon in less than 400 gallon lots. Those were the price and the conditions that the Milk Marketing Board was quoting to farmers. Of course, there are farmers who want this milk. When we decide that it is the economic price which dictates what we are to do, we are repeating a formula produced by the Treasury which results in valuable pig food being thrown away and poured into a gravel pit or sandpit, or whatever it may be.
I do not believe that any hon. Member representing the average constituency can honestly and sincerely say that there are no people in his constituency who are not in need of milk. We have not yet reached the stage in this country where people are eating too much, or children are drinking too much milk. The fact is that dairy farmers are faced today with increases in costs and with a fall in the price per gallon, a position which has

been created by the Government's own policy, and it is natural enough that the dairy farmer, who has no confidence in what he will get for his product next year, after the next Price Review, says that this Bill in itself is not sufficient to enable him to face the future with confidence.
What about the pig farmer? We now see quite clearly that with a little effort we could make this country self-supporting in pigs and bacon. It would not take much incentive to enable us to say of pigs and bacon what we can say about potatoes, except for early potatoes, that we need no imports at all. Is that to be the policy of the Government? Or are our pigs to be on a sliding scale all the time? We have had this year pigs at a low figure, pigs at a high figure. It looks as though for the next few months pigs will be worth a fair amount of money, but are we always to have this haphazard business with pigs?
It would have been better if the Government had leant in the direction of a marketing board. I should be out of order if I went on discussing that, because it is not in the Bill, but the pig farmer is not feeling any great confidence in what his future will be, because he does not know now whether pork and bacon will not follow the example set by milk, which, because of the Government, has been falling in price to such an extent.
The egg producer was startled by the Minister when, last Monday, he said:
…it would be right to warn producers now that, unless there is some major change in circumstances"—
he did not define what the change in circumstances might be—
between now and next February, a further reduction in the level of the guarantee, within the long-term assurances, must be expected."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1957; Vol. 570, c. 865.]
So in three vital, essential parts of our agricultural production there are uncertainty, worry, no confidence in the future. It really will not be enough to say to the farmers, in the light of their experience in 1956 to 1957, and of what they will get in 1958 for milk and eggs alone, that the guarantee that prices will not fall below the figures specified in the Bill is sufficient encouragement for them.
I fear that the Bill will not offer the small farmers the hope that many of them


thought was contained in the White Paper. The small farmer, generally speaking, has not the money today to put up the two-thirds for the schemes of improvement on his land. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cardigan mentioned that the right hon. Gentleman had talked about streamlining the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation. What we need is streamlining of the credit rates of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation.
It is no wonder that the Corporation's lendings last year were only£1½ million, or some such figure. Its rates are too high. They are too high even for the big men, and as for the small men it is hopeless to believe either that a majority of the small farmers are in the financial position to find the necessary two-thirds to put down for improvements, or that they can command the two-thirds by getting it from their banks. They cannot. Too many of these small farmers who are working extremely hard earn a reward not much greater than that of the agricultural worker, and I know few agricultural workers who could find the sort of sums required under the Bill.
The credit squeeze operates harder on the small man in agriculture than it does on the small man in industry, because the small man has not been able to accumulate funds. The arable farmers, the men who are producing wheat, are worried sick about what will happen to wheat over the next few years. The Australians are worried about what will happen to their wheat crops. The United States could break the market completely overnight if it unshipped its year's backlog. The arable farmers in East Anglia feel now that, as some of their colleagues in the West Country have suffered considerably over eggs and milk, soon it will be their turn with cereals. The only hopeful sign for them today, taking it over a reasonably long term, is in sugar beet and potatoes.
I believe, therefore, that the Government must go further. They must pay attention to marketing and must make up their minds whether they want to increase production, on the one hand, by production grants while, at the same time, decreasing consumption by allowing the present steady and automatic increase in the cost of living to continue. I warn the Minister that it will be no use saying

that something has gone wrong with the Bill if something goes wrong with agriculture in this country. The Bill will be neither an alibi nor a shield. If the Bill is a first instalment of a radical, bold, and progressive agricultural policy on the part of the Government, it will be useful, but if it is not it will be a monument to the failure of the Government's agricultural policy.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Willey: As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will have appreciated, we on this side of the House are not hostile to the Bill. Unlike the twenty-six gallant Conservative gentlemen in Norwich, we have no intention of voting against it, but we are very disturbed about the condition of British agriculture at present. It is because we believe that the Bill fails to take into sufficient account the causes of that disturbance that we give it only a very qualified welcome. But we appreciate that some improvements have been made in it as a result of our labours in Committee. We particularly appreciate the part played by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in meeting many of the points raised there. In passing, I very much regret that the Government were not able to reconsider the composition of the Pig Industry Development Authority.
We give the Bill a very qualified welcome, because of the difficulties at present facing agriculture. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) graphically described, the position of agriculture has deteriorated very much over the past few years. As he showed, the share of the national income enjoyed by agriculture has declined over the past few years, and our only consolation is that, assuming that this disastrous state of affairs continues, the Bill regulates the rate of shrinkage in agriculture's share of the national cake. It does no more than that.
What really disturbs us is the failure of the Government to face their responsibility for the growing lack of confidence in British agriculture; to face their responsibility for the disturbance brought to the industry by the inept way in which they proceeded to decontrol, and inflicted agriculture with the direct consequences of their financial policy.
We discussed in Standing Committee the position of the farmers' incomes. It was not denied that, whether we speak in absolute or relative terms, their incomes have fallen over the past few years. It is little consolation to know that all the Government are proposing to do is to place a limit upon the rate of any further decline. We would have been more comforted if the Government had faced their responsibility for causing it.
Again, this Bill does not tackle some of the problems which have been raised during our discussion of it. Pigs have been mentioned. I ask the Government what their policy is on pigs. They must have a very limited approach because, in view of the crisis in pig production a few years ago, they are afraid to pursue a policy which would bring about again a substantially increased pig production.
The crisis in pigs has not been the only crisis facing the farmer. We have had crises in livestock. We have the present difficulties about milk. I point out to the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) this remarkable fact, that we are today the third largest exporter of condensed milk in the world. This is fantastic economics. This is another export which is subsidised by the British consumer. It is a marginal production of milk which depends, we can argue, upon imported feedingstuffs. Where is the logic of behaving like this? The case recently made out about the export of eggs applies not only to eggs. Here we have a Government apparently supporting this new developing subsidised export trade. Mention was made of the millions of gallons of milk which have been poured down quarries—

Mr. Amory: Skimmed milk.

Mr. Willey: Yes, but at the same time that this is happening we have a fall in the consumption of fresh milk due to the policy of the Government. There has been a fall in the consumption of full price milk and, of course, there will be a fall in the consumption of welfare milk. We cannot understand why the Government should act in this contradictory way. These factors are bound to disturb the confidence of the farmer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) mentioned Australian wheat. The farmers are well

aware of the position of grain surpluses in the world and of the position of Australia. Yet the Government have destroyed the confidence which the farmer here could have as long as we had bulk purchase agreements with the Dominions. Whatever this Bill may do about prices, the inherent disturbance and uncertainty remains, because the cardinal fact is that we cannot effectively give guarantees upon a free market, and expect those guarantees to operate, whether that free market be a domestic or an international one.
I will mention another factor which has led to a good deal of disturbance in the farming industry, and understandably so. That is the question of the retail prices. If there had been a correlation between a fall in producer prices and a fall in retail prices this would have been understandable. The producer could have anticipated that at any rate the fall in producer prices was by way of reaction causing increased consumption through a fall in retail prices. That is just what has not happened.
We have had increasing retail prices, lowering the rate of consumption, against falling producer prices.

Mr. Amory: No.

Mr. Willey: The right hon. Gentleman says that that is not so. What about bread? I will deal with other commodities if challenged, but I mention bread because that is the current one which we have been discussing recently in the House. The dramatic and drastic fall in grain prices has not reflected itself in a fall in the price of bread. I give the right hon. Gentleman this. If we look at all the commodities which I have mentioned where there has been a disastrous break in producer prices, on no occasion has that been reflected in retail prices.

Mr. Amory: It has in butter.

Mr. Willey: The right hon. Gentleman mentions butter. In the case of butter we depend almost entirely on imports. If he had mentioned cheese it would have been more relevant, because there is a large proportion of cheese that is domestically produced. In the case of cheese, unlike that of butter, we have had a maintenance of high retail prices. I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the illustration he has given. because.the fall in producer prices abroad


has had a marked effect on retail prices in this country.
I will now deal with the Bill and its endeavour to provide some element of security. What does it do? It does no more in this atmosphere, in these circumstances, than to say to the farmer, "We will regulate the rate at which your share of the national income will decline." I concede at once that this safeguard is not in the original 1947 Act. It was not there for the simple reason that no one in 1947 anticipated these circumstances. But I would again say to the Government that this is no more than a palliative. We welcome it in a very restrained qualified way, but what is depressing is the cardinal underlying assumption that these circumstances will persist.
I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton that over and above this we can assume that, at any rate for some foreseeable future, inflation will be with us which will aggravate the farmers' difficulties. What we wish to see is a recognition by the Government of their own responsibility, some recognition of their own ineptitude and a recognition at last of the fact that it is impossible to reconcile the guarantees which they are seeking to provide for the producers with an absolutely free market. In fact, if we give guarantees to the producers there must be some continuing responsibility for that commodity.
When we turn to the Part II of the Bill, we are up against the same essential, cardinal difficulty. The financial policy of the Government has had a particularly drastic impact upon agriculture. The Government say that if they are faced with difficult economic circumstances they will not resort to physical controls. They will not exercise any discrimination, they will not accept any responsibility and they will have a blanket overall control exercised by dear money.
The Bill does not tackle the essential difficulty; it gives us a palliative. We are to have a little repair work done in agriculture. The Government say, in respect of agriculture, "We will call upon the taxpayer to redress this balance in this instance and, through subvention, to provide that agriculture shall have interest rates lower than those obtaining generally." That is not unacceptable.
As I have said in Standing Committee. it is recognition of the necessity of having

some planning. But it does not tackle the cardinal difficulties, and it is an extraordinarily expensive way of setting about it. It is very expensive to the taxpayer. It has this further flaw, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) said on Second Reading, that it does no more than restore for agriculture the position obtaining before the Government followed their present financial policy. At that time, agriculture was not receiving sufficient capital expenditure.
If we pay regard only to agriculture, the Bill is not unwelcome, but first it is very expensive to the taxpayer and secondly it does not face up to the cardinal problem. which is a problem not only for agriculture in this country but for agriculture in most countries in the world—the need to devise a proper system of credit and investment for agricultural production. The Government have not tackled that problem. They have provided an inadequate palliative.
Before I leave the importance of investment, I have some questions to put to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I apologise for asking them so late in the discussion. Will he assure the House that these capital grants will not be taken into account when it comes to rentals? Secondly, will he assure the House that there will be no opportunity for these grants to be used for the purpose of capital gains.
I have dealt with two major elements in the Bill. When we come to the third, dealing with pigs, the position is rather different. Here, the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the recommendations of the Reorganisation Commission, and he is in a very strong position. He can say that the Reorganisation Commission has carefully inquired into the pig industry and that he has accepted its recommendations with alacrity. While I would not stress this objection as I have stressed my objections to Parts I and II, I suggest that even here the right hon. Gentleman is open to some criticism, because this is not the first time we have had a Reorganisation Commission for the pig industry. We had a commission in the '30s. The Government accepted that Report-I make no complaint about that—but it was soon found that the Minority Report of Lord Haldane was nearer the mark. In the present Commission, there was a very


strong combination against the Report—the combination of the N.F.U. and the Co-operative Union. They both argued, and still maintain, that there is a necessity to provide for the orderly, efficient marketing of pigs.
We are obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for making it quite clear that the Pig Industry Development Authority will have the review of marketing within the scope of its activities. While I appreciate that he is accepting the Reorganisation Commission's Report, I express some doubts whether it will be sufficient. I say at once that we welcome the Authority. I in no way want to detract from our warm welcome of this Authority, which should do a great deal for the industry. But at the same time we must have some fear that there will still remain the problem of marketing.
So we welcome this Bill with some serious qualifications. Our overriding concern is the absence of any policy for agriculture emerging from the Government Front Bench. The Minister seems amused. I am not pretending that this is easy; it is an extraordinarily difficult problem. But I wish to emphasise that we do not get much further nowadays by talking of the conditions of 1947. Then conditions were very different, and the 1947 Act fulfilled the demand made by those conditions. We must get some new thinking from the Government particularly because these are extraordinarily difficult problems. I will mention some of them.
We are not now merly concerned with getting an overall increase in production. We have to determine commodity priorities within that overall increase. This is difficult for a country which imports half of its foodstuffs. We have to keep our domestic prices related all the time to the prices of imported foodstuffs, which again is difficult. Under the present administration, it seems that we have not the controls we should have. As the National Farmers' Union have said, we cannot just consider our own domestic production in isolation. We have also to consider our import policy.
We must realise the importance of particular commodities within overall production. To give an example, we may easily increase the production of milk by decreasing the price. But we have to think

of the importance of his milk cheque to the marginal producer. Within an increase of overall production we have to have an increased efficiency. We have to determine what are the measures of increased efficiency. We can get a measure of increased efficiency which will eliminate the marginal producer and so reduce overall production.
I do not wish to speak outside the scope of the Bill, but I mention these things to voice our dissatisfaction. We think this a Bill which provides understandable safeguards to the farmer in present circumstances, but we appeal to the Government to think more about the inherent difficulties facing agriculture today. Having obtained this Bill, I hope that then major matters affecting the industry will be discussed by the Government and a policy evolved for British agriculture.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Godber: I think it fair to say that, apart from a good deal of criticism, we have had a measure of support and welcome for this Bill from almost every hon. Member, with the exception of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). Undoubtedly, that welcome is reflected in the country, where the farming community as a whole welcomes this Bill and has good grounds for doing so.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has spoken of what he calls the decline in agriculture and the lack of confidence in the industry. I find it very difficult to see agriculture in the same light as he does, when I remember that its output is now running at the highest rate ever—159 per cent. of the pre-war rate—and that the profitability of the industry last year, measured in normal terms, was about equal to its highest ever. I do not think that these figures tie up with the description that he gave.
The hon. Member also talked about surpluses, which do exist to a certain extent. He referred to the problem of milk. I would remind him that it is only in the case of skimmed milk that there has been wastage, and the reason for that is purely economic, namely, that we just cannot afford to transport it for very long distances because it is not worth the cost involved. The use of skimmed milk during the surplus period has been very much stepped up, and has risen from


about 100,000 gallons to about 750,000 gallons a week, which is a considerable increase. I understand that steps are being taken to try to absorb larger quantities if such a surplus occurs again. The situation is by no means out of hand and it would be wrong if it were thought that it was.
What has interested me about the debate has been the illumination provided for my hon. Friends about the way in which hon. Members opposite are thinking of our problems today. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North was talking once more of bulk purchases, and he was not the only one who talked of that as a method of solving our agricultural problems. They seemed to have the idea of going back to bulk purchases and to some form of marketing commissions—which, I believe, was the phrase used by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)—such as was envisaged in the Labour Party policy statement on marketing that came out in January, 1955.
Apparently I am to gather that the Opposition have no fresh thought on agricultural policy beyond that statement. I am sure that the farmers will be interested to learn that, because, as I remember, they did not think very much of it when it originated. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton reminded us that he was a member of the Lucas Committee. I well remember that Committee's Report being published. I know of no report in history which caused greater consternation and dismay among farmers. Their fears were relieved only when they knew that it was not to be implemented.
The hon. and learned Member's whole thinking was on the lines of that Report, with its rigidity which farmers were so scared of, and the fact that they were to be denied the right to have anything to do with their commodities once they had passed through the farm gates. They disliked it very much and I am sorry to think that the hon. and learned Member has gone no further since then.;
I have been asked one or two points of detail which I think I should try to deal with as best I can. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins), who was kinder to the Bill than some other hon. Members opposite, asked specifically whether there would be

any limitation on the expenditure in a particular county. I think not. These matters will be judged on their merits in the country as a whole, and there is certainly no intention to penalise one county if it has justification for larger expenditure.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) went back to the question of the farmer's own labour and urged us to do more. I do not think that there is much that I can add to what I have said about this matter, but we hope that through the standard costs system we can do a considerable amount.
The hon. Member also spoke about cattle grids and roads, which are clear cases for co-operation. We have given an undertaking that in that sort of case we consider that an argument can be made out.
I am advised that although in theory the Bill could apply to crofts, in practice there is very little in Part II to cover the crofters of Scotland. I understand that they are covered by separate arrangements under Scottish legislation. I cannot take it very much further, because I do not pretend to understand Scottish legislation any more than I understand crofts. That is the best advice I have on that point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) returned to his charge about woodlands and the definition of "ancillary" as applied to agriculture. I do not think that I can tell him much more about this. I fear that he will be disappointed. I know how strongly he feels on this question of woodlands. We have told him more than once that woodlands can only come in if they are ancillary, in the sense that they are needed as part of the farming programme of a particular farm. This is clearly a matter for definition by the St. Aldwyn Committee and it is better not to try to define it precisely now.
The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) asked us several questions about credit facilities. He was a little worried about the ability of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation and the Lands Improvement Company to meet the demands for credit. We have made considerable inquiry on this, and we are assured that they will, in the main, be able to meet the demands that will be made upon them. I am glad


that the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the medium-term credit system being sponsored by the N.F.U. I have not had a chance to look at it properly yet, but I think the N.F.U. is worthy of congratulation for its initiative in bringing forward this scheme, which, I hope. may prove a help.
The hon. and learned Member also referred to the Mid-Wales Report and the definition of economic and non-economic holdings. The definition of an economic holding as envisaged in the Bill is not the same as in the Mid-Wales Report, which is of considerably higher standard. I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman need have the fears which he expressed in regard to that matter.
The hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) asked me a number of questions relating to surpluses, about which he was scared. There is not much I can add to what I have already said on that score except to assure the hon. Gentleman that our main purpose is to encourage the economic production in this country—there are many commodities in which we are far from a surplus at this stage—of those commodities and to see, if possible, a switch from those where we have a slight over-production. The over-production which has occurred in one or two commodities during the past year or two is only slight and marginal.
I see no dangers such as hon. Gentlemen opposite have been trying to point out, but, if such dangers exist, how much more valuable is the Bill that it would otherwise be if, at the very time when, as hon. Members have been saying we have serious surpluses, we are underwriting the future very considerably indeed in Part I.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have to make certain noises not altogether in favour of the Bill and I understand that; but, by and large, the Bill has had a good passage through the House. We are grateful to hon. Members for the assistance they have given. I believe that the Bill will be widely welcomed in the country as a further assurance of the Government's support for British agriculture in the years to come.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — SOLICITORS BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Wills.]

Committee Tomorrow.

DENTISTS BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

9.59 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am under duty to draw the attention of the House to a provision in paragraph 7 of the First Schedule, which relates to disqualification from membership of this House. I should explain that owing to the sequence of dates, the passing of the House of Commons Disqualification Act makes no provision now appropriate, and it is proposed in due course to put that right in Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Wills.]

Committee Tomorrow.

AGRICULTURE (PLOUGHING GRANTS)

10.1 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I beg to move,
That the Draft Ploughing Grants Scheme, 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th May, be approved.
It might be for the convenience of the House if this Scheme were discussed with that relating to Scotland, in which case if there are points relating to Scotland I am sure that my noble Friend will be very glad to deal with them.
The general Scheme for England and Wales re-enacts the previous Scheme, with two small changes. The first change is the abolition of the proviso under Part I that farmers must get approval before reseeding to grass land for which the ploughing grant is claimed. This change fully and formally recognises the prime importance of grass as a feeding stuff and, indeed, as a crop in its own


right. The recognition is only formal, as previously at least 95 per cent. of the applications to reseed to grass have been granted. It is, none the less, important, and it will certainly simplify administration.
The second change relates to the qualifying date. The date in Part II for grass qualifying for the£12 per acre has been moved forward from 4th May, 1939, to 1st June, 1946. That will allow any difficult grassland, which was ploughed up during the war but which reverted to grass before June, 1946, to qualify for the higher rate of grant. It is estimated that about 12,000 or 13,000 acres in all are likely to be affected. The other changes are purely of a drafting nature, making the wording of the English and Scottish Schemes identical wherever possible. Otherwise, the Schemes continue in the same form as last year with the rates of grant of£7, and£12 for the more difficult land.
As this is a continuation of existing policy, and one which has, I think, commended itself to the House and to the agricultural community in the past, I do not think that there is any need for me further to elaborate the Scheme, but, naturally, I would welcome the opportunity of replying to any points that any hon. Member may have in mind.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion: I should think any farmer looking at today's business in the House will be highly satisfied. It seems to be a case of agriculture, agriculture everywhere but not a grant too much. This would appear to be another grant for farmers being continued for an additional year, but we have no fault to find with this ploughing grant as the Minister has now produced it. It is true, of course, that when the Minister introduced his original Bill under which these Schemes are now made he told us that one of its purposes was to arrest the decline of the tillage acreage.
At that time, the Parliamentary Secretary, then a back bencher, said:
This Bill, after all, is only a stimulant. It is a stimulant to try to restore the position as it was—two years ago."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May 1953; Vol. 500, c. 458.]
That was in relation to the decline of the tillage area.
Secondly, the Minister said that the job of the Bill was to provide means whereby we might replace imported feedingstuffs by home-grown coarse grains. And thirdly, he said that it was to ensure that the ploughing grant was made in such a way that it would only act in those cases where the land, after having been ploughed was sown with approved crops. What has happened as a result of the various grants that the former Parliamentary Secretary has introduced to the House from time to time since the Act of 1952? In the first place, the decline of the tillage acreage has not been arrested. Indeed, the tillage acreage was down by over half a million acres last year compared with 1953–54. What the Minister hoped to do in that connection has not been achieved by his grants.
The second point is that we have not replaced the imported feedingstuffs by home-grown feedingstuffs. It is true that during the period that I have just mentioned, barley is up by about 300,000 tons, but oats—still coarse grains—are down by 325,000 tons in the same period, so that there is an overall loss there of 25,000 tons. The import of concentrated feedingstuffs has increased over the years that I have mentioned by half a million tons a year, and I am glad that the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, now the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, has nodded his head, which makes me feel that my figure is right.
Another matter is that the by-products from imported grains and seeds are up over the same period by 400,000 tons. This, of course, has added a considerable charge upon our balance of trade payments and is a serious matter in this context. This is one of the things which caused the Minister to introduce the original Act, and is responsible for the various orders that we have had before us throughout the period.
The third point which the Minister made when he was introducing his Bill was that ploughing grants should be made only in cases where the land, after ploughing, has sown to an approved crop. That, too, has gone by the board. It seems to me that the three points which the Minister had in mind when introducing his Bill have all been dropped in the course of the years, or have not been attained.
We have discussed today at considerable length the conditions within the industry, with particular reference to milk and pigs. I think that the conditions which now obtain within the industry make it absolutely vital that the Minister should reconsider his whole policy—his policy, for example, in relation to these grants. Is he satisfied that he is achieving what he set out to achieve in 1952? I think it would be a good thing if we could guarantee that better grass would replace imported feedingstuffs. It would reduce costs, help with the balance of trade, and would be worth while. But nobody can feel completely happy about this, for it is not of much use encouraging more grass if it is not properly grazed and properly managed. Those two things must run together in that connection. Neither is it of much use if a flush of milk off grass or a seasonal supply of meat off grass cannot be sold or properly preserved for use in the off-peak periods.
If we are to get more and better grass, for Heaven's sake let us use the product from that grass in the way it should be used. I was delighted with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), that if we cannot use these things, then let the under-privileged and under-fed of the world use them for their advantage. It is said that two-thirds of the world's people do not know what it is to experience a full and satisfied belly. If we can do something to use our surplus product to that end, it would be well worth while. It is sometimes said—I have said it myself before—that when America finds that she has a surplus of wheat or whatever it may be, she might well distribute it to the starving world. If we ever reach the stage when we have a surplus or a considerable over-production of any of these commodities, then let this two-thirds of the world's population have some of the advantage. It would be well worth doing for more than one reason.
We must ensure that the meat we produce, when we produce it off grass, is properly marketed or, indeed, stored, for the period when it is required. The slaughter of cattle gives an indication of what I mean. Slaughtering goes on at the rate of about 60 to 70 per cent. of the year's average in the winter, spring and early summer, rising to 150 to 180 per cent. of the year's average in the

late summer and early autumn. That is understandable; it comes off grass, off the cheapest feedingstuff we know, the production and quality of which this Scheme is designed to increase and improve.
We must ensure that there is reasonable marketing without gluts, and that the important end products of our grass are used at a time of the year when weather conditions are not favourable to their preservation or immediate use. These gluts should be catered for by additional storage facilities, etc. If the Minister has his way, he will be faced with an increasing problem, for there will be more and better grass, and better silage and better hay, with the means of conserving our grass when we have it, will be required.
We will, of course, give the Minister this Scheme, but he really must give the whole policy behind it—there must be a policy behind it as there was supposed to be a policy behind the original Bill—further consideration in the light of the complete failure up to now to achieve the objects of the original Act under which these Schemes are now produced.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I intervene only because I understood that we were going to take both Schemes together, and I thought that if I did not rise now I might be too late. I did think the Parliamentary Secretary was going to say a word in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion).

Mr. Godber: I was proposing to do so, but I did not wish to stop you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in putting the Question; I have had a long session.
I appreciate the point which the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) has put forward, but there is, I think, a clear distinction which should be brought out. First of all, I will just thank him for the researches he has made into my own past remarks. I am very flattered, and I must say that, after this passage of time, I am very relieved to find they were no worse.
The point the hon. Gentleman was making in regard to tillage acreage being maintained is perfectly valid. It is, however, important to realise that at present we are thinking more in terms of arable


acreage, which, of course, includes temporary grass, as well as crops and fallow. In fact, the arable acreage has been almost maintained. It is now at a figure of 17,610,000 acres compared with 17,998,000 in 1951. The figure, therefore, has been almost maintained during the passage of time when there has been a natural tendency for the land to go back to grass. Although we have not achieved any expansion, we have at least kept the level more or less even.
It is not unfair to point out that the grants are a valuable form of assistance to the small farmer in many ways. We are anxious to see that small farmers are assisted and this is one practical way in which we can do it. I was interested to find that the average acreage ploughed up by beneficiaries in the last year was eight acres. This shows clearly that small farmers have been making considerable use of the Scheme. It is a valuable one for them in particular because it injects money at a time when they most need it. We think it is valuable to continue it in this form for the maintenance of the arable acreage.
We are more anxious, as the hon. Member said, to put the emphasis on good grassland. We want to see the grassland improved and there is still a great deal of scope for improving it. There is plenty of room for the use of the grass when it has been produced. After all, our silo subsidy scheme is another way in which we encourage the utilisation of it.
We have a policy for grassland and this Scheme is one part of it. I do not wish to put it too high, but I believe that it is a useful Scheme and I am grateful to the hon. Member for saying that the Opposition will facilitate its passage.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I hope that some time—not at this hour of the night—we will have an opportunity of hearing the Government's justification for this subsidy nowadays. I make no bones of the fact that I have always regarded this as a bad subsidy. I have always said so. Had I remained silent tonight, the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland might have assumed that I had changed my mind. I have not.
I have never believed that this subsidy was justified. I did not believe that it

would have the effect of increasing our tillage acreage, as was claimed it would do when the Bill was introduced in 1952. I said at the time that I had no doubt that the tillage acreage would go up in the first year, but I anticipated that it would then decline, which is what it did.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) has said that from 1955 to 1956 the tillage acreage for the whole country went down by about 500,000 acres, which is a serious matter. From the Report of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland. I find that during the same period the tillage acreage in Scotland increased by 27,000 acres. In support of the Scottish Scheme, therefore, the Joint Under-Secretary can at least say that in the last year for which we have figures, the tillage acreage increased by 27,000 acres.
To get that 27,000 acres, however, if it was got by the ploughing grant subsidy, we had to pay the grant in respect of 362,000 acres and it cost us over£2½million to get those 27,000 acres. For the country as a whole, we spent, I suppose, six or seven times that amount and lost 500,000 acres in the process. That does not seem to me to be very clever. The Scheme does not seem to be yielding the results for which the Bill was introduced in 1952.
I wonder if the Joint Under-Secretary of State can tell us what has happened since the last year ending June, 1956, which was the first year of the increased subsidy? There was an increase in the tillage acreage with the increased subsidy. I wonder if he has information to give us about what has happened in the second year of the increased subsidy?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord John Hope): I am afraid it is not possible to give the figures yet.

Mr. Fraser: Without that kind of information the House cannot be sure that it is justified in continuing the Scheme for yet another year. A year has passed since we approved the Scheme giving this grant, and now we have only figures for a year ago.
We are here removing a provision in the previous Scheme whereby the farmer had to have the direct approval of the Secretary of State or the Minister for reseeding of land. That provision has gone


by the board. The Parliamentary Secretary said that was as well because 95 per cent. of the applications in any case were conceded. What did the applications amount to? How many acres of land were reseeded directly? This is important for the country as a whole and for Scotland in particular. Is there any reason to believe that land which is ploughed up with the aid of these grants is put back to grass immediately? How much has been put back to grass immediately? How much is it anticipated that, in consequence of this modification of the Scheme, will be put back immediately on being ploughed up?
I think that this is a foolish subsidy. One obvious reason why the House could not reject it is that it is part of a settlement which was arrived at in consequence of the Annual Review in February and March each year. The amount of money under this Scheme is part of a settlement which we normally approve some months earlier. However, this is a bad way to allocate the taxpayers' money to the farmers; a very bad way.
The Parliamentary Secretary said it helped small farmers. On the contrary, the people who get most of this money are not the small farmers but the big farmers. They are the farmers on good land who do the regular seven or eight year rotation of cropping, whose grass will be ploughed up as a matter of course after three years, because that is their normal system of husbandry. It is the self-same farmers who, to those of us who consult them, complain bitterly about the amount of tax they have to pay on these and other subsidies. The Joint Under-Secretary of State could say that a good bit of this money goes back to the Chancellor. If it does, is it not silly that we should give it in the way we do?
The Joint Under-Secretary of State has been sitting with us who represent Scotland in the Scottish Grand Committee upstairs discussing a Bill dealing with subsidies, and there the Secretary of State laid it down as a principle, in dealing with housing subsidies, that subsidy should not be given to any person who does not need subsidy. He lays that down as a principle in housing legislation, but he does not do so here. I am not asking him to apply that principle here. I am

merely asking him to be consistent. We do not advocate the introduction of a means test for this subsidy. We merely say that it is equally inapplicable to the housing subsidies we have been discussing in Committee upstairs.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Draft Ploughing Grants Scheme, 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th May, be approved.

Draft Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme, 1957 [copy laid before the House, 15th May], approved.—[Lord John Hope.]

MOTOR VEHICLES (INTERNATIONAL CIRCULATION)

10.25 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I bee to move,
That the Draft Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Order, 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th May, be approved.
This Order is made under the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Act, 1952. The effect of the Order is, first, that it will enable us to ratify the 1949 International Convention on Road Traffic, except for Annexes I and II. It also implements a commitment, accepted under Article IV of the agreement, regarding the status of forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Powers, and it supersedes the Orders of 1930 and 1933, which are no longer adequate.
Although the Order looks long and complicated, its broad effect is very simple. It is to permit visitors to this country to drive on our roads up to a period of twelve months on the validity of a current driving licence from their home country, instead of the present arrangement of issuing a temporary British driving licence to each visitor on arrival in this country. This is set out in Article 2 and it includes the driving of commercial vehicles as well as private motor cars.
Article 3 makes similar provision, but without a time limit, for members of visiting forces, for instance the American Forces, over here. The remaining Articles


in the Order deal with such matters as disqualification and withdrawal of licences, the issue of documents for vehicles entering this country, and exemptions from our lighting requirements provided that the vehicles conform with the requirements laid down in the Convention. All countries signatory to the Convention will give reciprocal treatment to our motorists visiting them. There will thus be benefits for visitors from this country to foreign countries and for foreign visitors coming into this country. Our tourist trade will benefit and so will our countrymen visiting other countries. These are both matters we want to see encouraged. Therefore, I think that I can confidently say that this is an Order which will be welcomed on both sides of the House.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary is quite right in predicting that the Order will be welcomed on both sides of the House. Our great regret is that it has not been laid earlier. I cannot understand why there has been this long delay. The United Nations Convention was signed in September, 1949, and was presented to the House in 1950. The agreement concerning N.A.T.O. farces. to which the hon. Gentleman referred, was made in 1950 and another was made in 1951. The necessary legislation, in conformity with the requirements of the Convention, was presented to the House in 1952. It was welcomed on both sides, although we on this side had some criticism to make and suggested some Amendments in Committee. It got through the House very rapidly and received the Royal Assent in July, 1952. It has taken the Government five years to produce the Order and lay it before the House. Their record in this corresponds to their road building programme.
Now that the Order has been laid and will, presumably, receive the consent of the House tonight, I hope that the remaining proceedings will be rapidly carried through. I see from the Order Paper of another place that it will be presented there on Wednesday of this week. I hope, thereafter, that it will receive very quickly the order of the court so that it will come into force.
This should be of considerable assistance to our tourist trade, because there is

nothing more infuriating to a tourist bringing his car into this country than to have to go through more formalities than are absolutely necessary. The necessity to obtain a British driving licence, after the presentation of the necessary forms and the payment of a small fee, has been of considerable annoyance to many foreign motorists, arid we are glad that it will come to an end.
I wish to put one or two points to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, particularly concerning matters raised during the Committee stage of the legislation which preceded this, to make sure that the assurances then given have been fully carried out. At that time we protested that too much was being left to delegated legislation; and even now we are in difficulty because we are here considering the Order, which itself provides that certain regulations have to be made particularly under Articles 5 and 6. These regulations cannot, of course, be presented to the House until the Order is passed, and then I believe that they are subject only to the negative Resolution procedure. We are in difficulty, because we are not certain what the regulations will contain.
Article 1, to which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary did not refer, permits the Minister to issue international driving permits to United Kingdom persons going abroad and it provides that the Minister can give tests to those persons for fees set out in the Schedule. As everyone knows who has taken a car abroad, this procedure is carried out at present by either the R.A.C. or the A.A. That is done quite efficiently and we have no complaint to make about it. But the fact remains that, more or less, it is necessary that one must be a member of one of those organisations, and that entails paying the necessary membership fee. In other words, there is a monopoly.
This Article provides that the Minister, or his Department, can function in this matter. Is it the intention of the Minister that his Department shall carry out this function, or that it shall continue to be delegated as at present? I feel it is desirable that the Minister should have these powers, but I feel that there should he an alternative open to people who take their cars abroad to handle the matter themselves rather than be forced, as at present, to go to one of these organisations. That would be a benefit to some persons.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary referred to Article 2, relating to the bringing of vehicles into this country by foreign tourists and others. This is the most important Article in the Order. But it applies equally to tourists and other private motorists, public service vehicles, namely, coaches, and also to road haulage vehicles, namely, commercial lorries and the like. I would like to be sure what is the position about insurance. I remember that during the Committee stage of the Motor Vehicles (International Regulations) Bill we discussed whether it would be obligatory for those visitors coming in under the Order to be insured against third party risks.
The then Parliamentary Secretary—then Mr. Gurney Braithwaite—in reply to points put to him, said:
I am able to give this undertaking. It is proposed that no person will be permitted to drive in this country without third party insurance.
Then my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) asked:
Third party insurance enforceable in this country?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 26th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 2619.]
The then Parliamentary Secretary replied in the affirmative.
But I can see nothing in this Order which covers that point. I should like to know whether it is covered, because I want to be quite sure that that assurance has been fulfilled and that no driver will be allowed on our roads, if he comes in under this international permit, unless he is fully covered for third party insurance. It is quite clear to us all that that is highly desirable. We do not want anybody to be in a worse position if he is involved in an accident simply because the driver of the car concerned is a foreigner and has not a British driving licence. If it is not covered in the Order it may be covered in the regulations, but I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can give me some assurance on that point, in view of the definite undertaking given during the Committee stage of the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Bill.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary also referred to convictions. It is quite clear, under Article 2 (4), that if someone in possession of one of these international permits is convicted and disqualified from driving he will not be

allowed to drive on our roads. That is quite right. There is full provision for the enforcement of that provision in the Third Schedule. That fulfils the assurance given during the Committee stage of the legislation to which I have referred, and for that we are grateful.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary had said that these provisions refer also to members of N.A.T.O. forces who are covered by the agreements entered into concerning those forces. As far as I understand, they are still subject to their own military courts in this country. If they were involved in an accident on the roads while on military duty they would then be heard in their own courts and convicted or not, as the case may be. But if they were found guilty and disqualified from driving by their own courts, would they not be permitted to drive under the permit which we had issued?
I ask that question because of the wording of the Order. It refers to a court. Does that include the United States military courts, because Article 3 (2) refers to disqualification under the 1930 Act? Quite clearly, if a person comes before a United States military court for having committed an offence on the road he will not be tried under the 1930 Act, and it seems to me that under those Articles 2 and 3, as the disqualification referred is only a disqualification under our 1930 Act, there is still a loophole, and that it would be possible for a member of the United States forces—who, under normal circumstances, if tried in our courts would unquestionably be disqualified—still to be allowed to drive on our roads. That would be very undesirable.
There are still doubts whether there is sufficient security that those who bring in vehicles and drive them in this country will be subject to the necessary qualifications to ensure that their standard of driving and the condition of the vehicles is as high as that demanded by our legislation and enforced in our courts. We have special driving licences for heavy vehicles for which the age limit is 21 years. The Order provides that drivers bringing in such vehicles may be 18 years of age, thereby reducing the age limit for these special persons. This is a clear case, where we do not demand the same standard of foreigners as we do for our own people. I do not


think that can be justified, although the answer may be that we cannot ratify the Convention unless there is that provision. I hope that that matter has been fully looked into.
One reason for expressing these doubts is the greater size of these vehicles on the Continent, the higher speeds at which they are driven and the higher accident rate which prevails and which gives cause for concern. In some countries drivers do not even have to be subject to driving tests. That is the case in Belgium, where the accident rate is very high indeed. Drivers with a licence in Belgium are to be permitted to drive these vehicles on our roads. That may be necessary so that we can carry out this Convention—and it is desirable that we should do so—but I hope that steps will be taken in whatever way possible to ensure that the drivers are made fully conversant with the Highway Code, our rules and regulations on the road, our standards of driving and our discipline on the roads; and that efforts will be made to enforce our rules and regulations with these special-permit drivers as they are with our own nationals.
The Order provides for the bringing in of commercial vehicles carrying goods and of public-service vehicles. Under the 1930 and 1933 Road Traffic Acts and subsequent Acts a great number of regions exist which require both drivers and vehicles to conform to certain conditions. We want to be sure that those conditions are to apply equally in the case of these vehicles which are brought in from abroad as to the present vehicles registered under the licensing system.
If these goods vehicles are brought over will they be able to ply for hire and reward while in this country? That is to say, if they bring goods over from the Continent will they be able to pick up other goods to take to a destination, and pick up return loads for the Continent? Or is there to be a provision in the regulations which can be made under this Order that no such carrying for hire and reward will be permitted? If those vehicles were not so restricted it would be quite a serious matter for the vehicles licensed under A. B or C licences here. There could be unfair competition and an undermining to a small extent of our licensing system if those vehicles were not subject to the same regulations governing

working hours and the like as are our own.
I have raised these points only because I, like hon. Members on both sides, am very much concerned about road safety. It is essential that there should be nothing which will follow the making of regulations which can add to the danger on the roads. The accident figures are appallingly high, and it is essential that they should not be allowed to rise higher as a result of this very desirable encouragement of the tourist trade. We all favour an extension of these exchange visits of tourists and the facilitating of the tourist trade, but we must ensure that all drivers do at least maintain as high standards as we demand of our own people, and that they tend in no way to increase the danger. With those qualifications, I assure the Parliamentary Secretary that we welcome this Order.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: In supporting this Order, I think that I should correct one statement made by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies). It is, of course, correct that the motoring organisations have for many years issued international driving certificates, but I do not think that it is correct to say that any candidate presenting himself for such a certificate has to be a member of the motoring organisations or must have paid a membership fee. I believe that anybody can get a certificate from those organisations merely for the cost of the certificate.
A good deal of stress has been laid on the value of this Order to the tourist trade, but it will be of considerable value also to the business community. There are many British business men who go overseas in search of business, or who go to international shows, to whom it is a great convenience to have a motor car when doing their business, and doing away with the international driving licence will assist in that way in the future. Indeed, as the Common Market develops, and when, as we hope, the Channel tunnel is built, I envisage hundreds, thousands of British commercial travellers chasing over the roads of Belgium and Holland and France, and over theautobahnenof Germany, seeking business. This Order will be a move in that direction.
We must not forget the amount of traffic which should flow by the carriage of goods in heavy vehicles. It is not generally realised in this country what a tremendous amount of traffic is carried by big lorries on the Continent of Europe. In going from Sweden to Italy, for example, or from France to Austria. a motor lorry will cross half a dozen frontiers, perhaps, on the one run. That kind of thing is obviously to be encouraged, as also is the Continental coach trade. The Order will assist that very considerably.
I would ask my hon. Friend to bear one thing in mind. We ought, as soon as possible, to convert into law as much as we can of the 1949 Geneva Convention. There are certain items which remain. such as the acceptance of motorised pedal cycles with engines of under 50 c.c. in the category of cycles. That is accepted on the Continent but such motorised cycles are not accepted as cycles in this country; they are still classed as motor cycles. That sort of thing in connection with the Geneva Convention has still to be done, and I ask my hon. Friend to give attention to it. We do not want to fall behind other European countries in making the whole Geneva Convention part of the legislative system of the country.
I have pleasure in recommending the House to accept the Order.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Nugent: In reply to what my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) has said about Annex I of the Convention dealing with mopeds, which excludes a cycle having an engine of not more than 50 c.c. from the definition of a motor-propelled vehicle, it is not at present our intention to accept that part of the Convention. It is not our wish to depart from the Convention unless we really have to, but we feel that it is in the general interest of road safety—I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees—that all drivers of motor-propelled vehicles should be subject to a test in this country, in view of our very intensively used roads. We have referred the matter to our Road Safety Committee, and we are awáiting its report on it. I may say that the manufacturers' association has not asked for that concession to be included in the

Annex; all that the manufacturers have asked is that we should consider a reduction of the age limit. In due course we shall consider that; in fact, I am seeing a delegation from them on that point this week.
In reply to the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), I have to acknowledge that the gestation period for this Order has been a very long one. The Convention was signed in 1949, in September I think, and I would merely say in extenuation that it did take about three years before the parent Act of 1952, with which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. and right hon. Friends had some contact, found its way on to the Statute Book. I can only suppose that laws which depend upon international conventions take a very long time to make. I might have been held responsible for some of the legislation considered earlier today, but for the four and a half years taken to complete this Order I take no direct responsibility, although, naturally. constitutionally it is partly mine.
One point in extenuation I will mention, because it is important. The lawyers had some difficulty in agreeing about the effect of the Convention as it affected commercial vehicles and passenger service vehicles. There was a doubt as to whether the Convention would extend to foreign drivers driving any commercial vehicles over here, in addition to the ones with which they came over. We felt that extension to be unacceptable. It is one thing to give the concession to drivers in the vehicles they are accustomed to drive but an altogether different matter to extend it to their use of any other vehicle. To clarify that important point, we are making a Declaration at the same time as we ratify the Convention to remove it beyond doubt. It has, however, taken the lawyers over a year to consider that matter and to reach a conclusion on it, and that has contributed to the time that we have taken.
The hon. Member referred to the undertakings given on the Committee stage of the Bill. As that took place four and a half years ago, I congratulate him on his good memory or his good researches. He asked whether the Minister will continue to delegate the issue of documents for drivers going abroad. The answer is that my right hon. Friend intends to continue to delegate this function


to the motoring organisations in this country. In Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Government does it. We consider that those organisations are competent and efficient for the purpose. If the Ministry did it, we should need extra staff. That would be an additional cost for which the user would have to pay. We are satisfied that we have the best arrangement. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) was right in saying that anybody even if he is not a member of one of the motoring associations, can ask for an international driving permit, and can get it at a fee which is non-profit-making.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East asked whether third-party insurance was obligatory for visiting vehicles—

Mr. Ernest Davies: Is it not a fact that if a person is taking his car abroad and requires the necessary documents,carnet,etc., the only way in which he can at present get them is through a motoring organisation? I was referring not only to the driving tests but to the obtaining of the necessary documents.

Mr. Nugent: I should like to check that point. I think that people can get them themselves, but it would put them to great trouble to do so and it is probably worth the fee that is paid to the motoring organisations, which, as I say, act on a non-profit-making basis. It is true that for that purpose people who are taking their cars abroad would have to join, but they can get the documents without joining if they so wish, although they would be involved in considerable work.
Third-party insurance is not dealt with in the Order because it is not part of the Order. The 1930 Act requires third-party insurance to be carried for every vehicle travelling in this country. That procedure applies to all visiting vehicles in the same way as to our domestic vehicles. The Order, therefore, does not affect that situation. Every driver coming into this country must take out third-party insurance unless he brings with him the international insurance certificate—the green certificate—with which many of us are familiar, and which we have to show in some countries on the Continent. Visiting forces have a special arrangement here which is arranged by the forces themselves and which has the same effect.
With regard to disqualification from driving, the position of members of visiting forces, about which the hon. Member asked, is that if the offence occurs whilst the driver is on duty in an official vehicle, he is subject to the disqualification penalty according to the law of his own country and he is tried by his military court. He is outside the jurisdiction of this country. I am informed, however. that the visiting forces have such penalties in their law and that these are inflicted in appropriate cases by their own military courts. If, on the other hand, a member of visiting forces commits his offence when driving his own private car, he is subject to the law of this country in our courts in the ordinary way.
The hon. Member cited Belgium in connection with driving tests. In Belgium there is no driving test and no licence either. In that case, the Minister will require an international driving test permit before admitting the visitor to this country. In that event, the visitor from such a country would have to get an international driving permit from the authorised agent in his home country before he came here, and would be subjected to some driving test before he came. If, however, he came from a country which did have driving licences though no test, then he would come here without having had a test. We have to make some concession in ratifying an International Convention which does, in its broad effect, give great benefit to all the parties.
As to whether commercial vehicles and passenger service vehicles must conform to our regulations, the answer is, no. With regard to driving licences and vocational driving licences the answer is also, no. They are exempt from that under Section 77 of the 1930 Act.
Vehicle licensing, which comes under the 1930 Act, is not covered by this Order, which deals with driving licences. I was asked if visiting vehicles can pick up passengers for hire or reward. The answer is, no. The age reduction from 21 years to 18 for drivers of passenger service vehicles and commercial vehicles, might have some effect on safety, but it was a concession that we felt it right to make in the general interests of ratifying this Convention and coming into line


with other nations. We do our best to bring to the attention of every visitor the driving practices in this country by giving him a copy of the Highway Code.
I hope that the House will accept that we have framed this Order in a way which will conform broadly with the Convention, while maintaining the high standard of road safety which we are striving to keep.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Draft Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Order, 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th May, be approved.

THERMAL INSULATION (IN DUSTRIAL BUILDINGS) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the thermal insulation of industrial buildings, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums which, under Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948, or under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954, as amended by the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, are payable out of moneys so provided.

Resolution agreed to.

BRITISH CITIZENS (REPORTS TO COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bryan.]

11.3 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I am raising tonight the question of the alarming growth of the practice of making secret reports on British citizens in the name of security. In doing so I labour under a severe disability, because this practice has now spread over so many fields, and so many new methods are being employed to obtain the information on which the secret reports are made, that I have difficulty in covering the subject adequately in the space of an Adjournment debate.
Therefore, I have limited my discussion of this subject to the practice of making secret reports on British citizens who want to travel in the Commonwealth, to emigrate to the Commonwealth, or to obtain jobs in other member countries of the Commonwealth. I am raising this matter as a result of the case of Keith John Miller, which I first ventilated in the House a fortnight ago—a case in which a young engineer wanted to go mountaineering in Pakistan, and was told by the Pakistan Government that he was personally not acceptable. As a result of the matter being raised in this House, the Pakistan Government's objection was withdrawn.
In the course of our questioning on this case, we elicited some important facts. The first of these was the admission by the Under-Secretary himself, on 9th May, that
Information is, in certain circumstances, exchanged between Commonwealth Governments about persons proposing to travel from one part of the Commonwealth to another.
He went on:
But it is not the practice to disclose whether or not such information has been furnished to any other Government in regard to named individuals.
When we pressed to know what the source of information was we were told that that could not be revealed—the source of the information about the character of a British citizen on whom an adverse report had been made. We were told that that was confidential. When we asked that any British citizen on whom an adverse report had been made, perhaps to the serious jeopardy of his whole future, should have the right to know the nature of the report, the source of the allegations against him, and the nature of the allegations against him, and that he should have a chance to answer the charges and a right of appeal, we were told that
… it is the duty of the Secretary of State to satisfy himself as to the reliability of an!, information which may be passed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May. 1957; Vol. 569. c. 1164 and 1168]
We were told that there could be no appeal against the judgment of the Secretary of State.
Certain important information emerged from the answers given in the case of Keith John Miller. First and foremost


the Under-Secretary of State abandoned any attempt to ride away from his Department's responsibility in this matter by saying that the refusal of entry of a British citizen to a Commonwealth country was entirely a matter for the Commonwealth Government concerned. I give him credit for that, that he did not try to ride away from his responsibility. He did not pretend that it was entirely within the jurisdiction of the Pakistan Government, the Canadian Government, or whatever Commonwealth Government might be involved, because he admitted that information is exchanged, and that that information is supplied entirely on the responsibility of the Secretary of State, who satisfies himself as to its reliability.
The second thing that we established in the case of Keith John Miller was that quite obviously the Secretary of State is not infallible. It is quite clear that he was highly fallible in the case of Mr. Keith John Miller. I first took up the case with the Secretary of State personally before I raised it on the Floor of the House, and he told me that he had made the fullest inquiries into the case and was not prepared to intervene. In other words, he had satisfied himself that the information—whatever it was—which was against Mr. Keith John Miller was adequate to justify the Pakistan Government in refusing to him entry into Pakistan.
Nobody was more surprised than I, in view of that assurance from the Secretary of State himself, when the Under-Secretary of State told us that the objections of the Pakistan Government had been withdrawn. I was all the more surprised because the High Commissioner's Office had told me, only an hour earlier, that the objections were still sustained.
There is a very great mystery about the case of Mr. Keith John Miller. We do not know what was the reason for the adverse report in the first place, though we are fairly satisfied that the objections were political and that they stemmed from the fact that for one year in his freshman days at the City and Guilds College this young man had been a member of the Students' Labour Federation, a body with Communist associations. The fact that since then he had engaged in no political activities, was a student who took a first-class degree in engineering, and had the reputable hobby of

mountaineering, did not weigh in the balance.
My theory is that automatic reports are presented by the British Secret Service to Commonwealth Governments on which they act without themselves checking the information, and that in this case, when the Pakistan Government heard that there was an outcry in the British House of Commons, then for the first time the Pakistan Government themselves began to examine the source of the information instead of accepting automatically the black list presented by M.I.5, and concluded that the case was ludicrous and certainly not worth the risk of causing bad blood between Pakistan and this country. I congratulate them on that.
This case, however, raises wider implications. These are terrifying to the citizens of this country, because another interesting admission was made by the Under-Secretary on 16th May, when we followed this matter up. The hon. Gentleman let us know that in many of these cases it is not a question of a Commonwealth Government coming to the Commonwealth Relations Office and saying, "We have an application from a young man or woman who wants to come to our country, either as an immigrant or a visitor. Can you tell us anything about the applicant?" Sometimes the information is volunteered by the British Government.
The hon. Gentleman said:
Such exchanges sometimes take place at the initiative of the Government which is in possession of Information.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 16th May, 1957; Vol. 570, c. 548–9.]
That can only mean that there is a permanent pool of information about thousands of British citizens which is being collected at some source in the British Government machine, from which adverse information can be drawn from time to time and secretly used against a British citizen.
That has quite far-reaching implications. Not everybody wants to go mountaineering, but since I raised the case of Mr. Keith John Miller I have been absolutely inundated with letters from people who say, "Now I will tell you my story". I only wish that I had time to read to the House details of a fraction of these cases. It is only in a few cases that people dare allow their names to be


used, for obvious reasons. Some say, "I cannot let my name be brought up, but here are the facts for use in support of your very wise campaign against this practice."
Occasionally a writer is prepared to allow his name to be used, such as Mr. Robert Gorely, whose case I was able to have published in theSunday Pictorialten days ago. He was prepared to take the risk and, like Mr. Miller, was prepared to have his case investigated. He wanted to go to Canada. His firm had confidence in him and offered him a first-class job in Canada, with excellent prospects for his family. He thought that everything was clear but, at the last minute, he was told that he was not a desirable immigrant. When he asked the reasons he was told,
All information on our file is strictly confidential and I am unable to advise you of the contents thereof.
Mr. Gorely said to me,
I have searched my mind. The only thing that I can conclude is that, from 1944, for 18 months I was a member of Unity Theatre, because I was keen on amateur dramatics and I thought it excellent experience to take part in a Unity Theatre production. It was pretty strong Left-wing stuff but I have never been a member of the Communist Party. I am not a member of any political party, not even a trade union.
The trouble about these cases is that if Canada or any other Commonwealth Government refuse entry to a would-be immigrant no reason is ever given.
Ontario is a particularly popular part of Canada for emigrants, many of whom want to go to Toronto. Ontario has an immigration office which is separate from the Federal Office. I challenge the Under-Secretary to deny that if I wanted to emigrate to Ontario my name would be sent by Ontario House to Scotland Yard for political screening. An attempt has been made to hide the fact that political screening takes place.
There is treble checking. There is a medical check, a criminal record check and political screening, and if a man is turned down no reason is ever given. I know that the Under-Secretary will say that in most of these cases the reasons are medical. That is probably true, but about 200 to 300 inquiries about emigration to Canada are made every day and about 10 per cent. are rejected. Even if only

a small fraction of that 10 per cent. were political in origin, it means that there may be hundreds of cases in which would-be emigrants have been damned on a secret report which is forwarded by the British Government to the Commonwealth Government.
I have here another case. I am not allowed to quote the name, but I think it is very interesting in substantiation of what I am saying. A young Post Office engineer in Glasgow saw an advertisement for a job in Canada, in the radar network of the United States Army, and as that fitted in with all the work he had done in the Civil Service, he applied. He knew that it was a security job, but he never had any doubts about his eligibility. He thought that it was "in the bag".
Then he was told he was not a suitable immigrant. What were the grounds? He had no criminal record. Were they health grounds? He had done his National Service in the Royal Marines a year or two earlier, so he was not likely to be exactly a physical crock. But he knew that he had something in his past—and it was this: he was a keen amateur player of the bagpipes, and one year he had been given an invitation to attend a youth festival on the other side of the Iron Curtain, because he could add to the entertainment by playing the bagpipes. It cost him only£18, and he went, for the fun and experience. Now, suddenly, this man. who has no political association—nor have his family or his girl friend—finds that he is turned down as "not a suitable immigrant" to Canada.
I suggest that not only in emigration cases, but in cases of visits to the Commonwealth and of jobs in our Colonies in particular, this kind of secret reporting goes on. Where does this information come from? What is happening is that we have now a security service on two levels. On the one hand, there is the level that Mr. Attlee, as he then was, was referring to in March, 1948, when he said that for certain top-secret jobs there must be open checks on would-be applicants for the jobs, or occupants of the posts. This House accepted that under safeguards. That procedure goes on at a fairly open level.
Underneath that, however, in addition to it, there takes place regularly, under the operations of the military intelligence


divisions of the War Office and the Special Branch of Scotland Yard, a perpetual checking-up by spying and informing on thousands of British citizens, with secret informers being used in offices, factories, universities, trade union branches, societies of all kinds. Those checks are going on. Information is collected, it is entered in the dossier, and then, at an appropriate moment, a secret report is written in to an employer, or to a Commonwealth or foreign Government.
There are lots of cases about which I could tell the House, one in relation to the United States, but I have not the time to do so tonight. But this is the situation to which we have come, and that is why I asked the Prime Minister if he would re-convene the Privy Councillors' Conference on Security, so that they could go into the working of these two levels of security check, a matter which Lord Chorley ventilated in another place so effectively, and give us a chance to work out proper safeguards against this abuse of security which has been taking place.

11.19 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): The hon. Lady has, during the last 15 minutes, built up a tremendous case on the flimsiest evidence which I have ever heard in the House, a great deal of which has been based on answers which were given in this House by myself in my capacity as Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. I notice that in an article which she wrote on this subject, one of many which she has contributed to the newspapers, she gibed at me for being unexpectedly forthcoming on this matter. The reason why is that we have nothing to hide, and nothing of which to be ashamed.
She has been lavish in her accusations, both in the Press and in this House, about McCarthyism. Apparently a smear of that sort is something that is perfectly justified—

Mrs, Castle: At least it is true.

Mr. Alport: —but she has done so without any evidence whatever to support her accusation that there has been an alarming growth of this procedure over the last few months and

years; indeed, she knows as well as I do that as far as my Department is concerned the practice to which she has referred and to which I referred in my answers to Questions, has been going on for thirty years or more. It has been going on under all Governments, and it has been regarded by Labour Governments, just as by Conservative Governments, as an essential practice in maintaining security against subversion.
For the hon. Lady to accuse my noble Friend and others who carry these very heavy responsibilities of a lack of responsibility in this matter is evidence of the way in which she has approached the matter. Indeed, one can see this from the articles that she has written upon this extremely difficult subject. I can assure the hon. Lady and the House that I speak not only for a Conservative Government but a Labour Government in saying that we are primarily concerned to ensure that the interests of individuals are safeguarded.
In the type of case to which the hon. Lady has drawn attention the responsibility rests upon the Secretary of State. My noble Friend, like his predecessors—Conservative and Labour alike—is fully aware of the responsibilities which fall upon him, and carries them out with the scrupulous attention to the interests of the individual concerned which we would expect from a high officer in our Government. I take the strongest exception to the way in which the hon. Lady has treated an interview which she had with the Secretary of State in an article that she wrote recently for theNew Statesman and Nation.It places Ministers in an extremely difficult position if, when they have had a confidential discussion with a Member of Parliament in his or her capacity as a Member, they then find themselves pilloried in the Press, as my noble Friend did in this case.

Mrs. Castle: I asked to see the Secretary of State in the normal way in pursuit of this matter before raising it on the Floor of the House, and at no stage did he ask that our discussion should he treated as confidential; nor would I have agreed to meet him on that basis if he had asked me to do so, because that would only have led to muzzling Members of Parliament still more in the performance of their duties.

Mr. Alport: I cannot allow the innuendoes in the article to go without some mention, in defence of my noble Friend.
There are three things to which I wish to draw the hon. Lady's attention, which she is apparently inclined to forget. The countries of the Commonwealth are independent of the United Kingdom, and I can assure her that it is not for the Commonwealth Relations Office to decide whom the Governments of Pakistan or Canada should allow to pass their frontiers. Nor can we compel those countries to open their doors to people whom they do not think desirable.
In all the cases to which the hon. Lady has referred the reason for exclusion appears to be attributed to a political motive, but, as she knows perfectly well, the Canadian Immigration Officer quite recently said that no political questions are asked. He said:
The only reasons for rejection are medical or conviction for a criminal offence, or if we do not think the person would make a good Canadian citizen.
Surely these Governments have the right and the responsibility to decide themselves, in the interests of their own populations, whom they think will make good citizens. It is an elementary right of any Government to exercise control in this way.
Further, the Governments concerned are under no obligation to give reasons why they decide to exclude any individual from their territories, but I will say that it is, as the hon. Lady knows, practically always on health grounds or grounds of character. But why does she decide that in the cases which she has raised tonight the reasons are political? It is not the Commonwealth Relations Office or the Government of the United Kingdom who set these standards of entry to the territories of the various independent members of the Commonwealth; it is the Commonwealth Governments themselves. We have neither the power nor the right to interfere. If the Pakistani Government decide to alter a decision made with regard to the entry of a United Kingdom citizen, they are perfectly within their rights to do so.
The second thing which the hon. Lady should remember is that communications between different parts of the Commonwealth on this subject have always been,

and must continue to be, treated as matters of confidence. In none of the cases to which the hon. Lady has referred am I prepared to say whether anything has passed between the respective Governments. I refuse to do so not only because it is in the interests of this country—and as a Government we are concerned with the interests of the United Kingdom—but also in the interests of the Commonwealth countries as well, that these confidential relations, which have existed for so many years, should be maintained and safeguarded.
Those who are refused entry into Commonwealth countries from the United Kingdom should not jump to the conclusion that the reason is a political one. I would go further, and say to the hon. Lady that she should not assume that all the stories that she has been told about the reason why entry has been refused, or the assumptions accepted by her correspondents, are necessarily correct.

Mrs. Castle: Of course not.

Mr. Alport: The hon. Lady should not therefore base a case upon evidence which she has no possibility whatever of proving to be correct.

Mrs. Castle: Then let the hon. Gentleman prove it.

Mr. Alport: The hon. Lady referred to the protest made by Lord Chorley in another place recently with regard to the universities. I remember, when the questioning took place over this case of Mr. Miller, the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) asked me whether there had been any communication with the Dean of the City and Guilds College. I should prefer to leave controversy on this matter to the noble lord and the hon. Member for Deptford—and no doubt the hon. Lady—as to what is the right procedure in this matter.

Mrs. Castle: This is important. Surely there is a difference between going behind the back of a student to a professor and asking for a secret report and, on the other hand, allowing the student to quote the professor as a reference of his own choice?

Mr. Alport: That was not—

Mrs. Castle: Certainly it was.

Mr. Alport: —what the hon. Member appeared to have in mind when he asked the question.


The third point which the hon. Lady should bear in mind is that all Governments have the right and duty to protect their interests from subversion from within and without. If I accepted the hon. Lady's challenge and her case, who, in fact, would benefit? The people who would benefit are precisely those from whom it is the duty of the Government to protect the country.

Mrs. Castle: Nonsense, of course not.

Mr. Alport: Let me remind the hon. Lady of the report made not long ago in the Statement on the Findings of the Conference of Privy Councillors on Security. It is Cmd. 9715. The Conference which included some of the most distinguished members of the hon. Lady's party stated:
The Conference is of the opinion that in deciding these difficult and often borderline cases, it is right to continue the practice of tilting the balance in favour of offering greater protection to the security of the State rather than in the direction of safeguarding the rights of the individual.
That is a statement made by some of the most experienced statesmen whom we have in this House, including representatives of the hon. Lady's party. Surely she will accept that their views are of importance in this matter.
There is nothing that the Government are more determined to do than to pre-

vent any abuse of these security measures. Equally, we are determined to ensure that where necessary effective security measures will be taken. There have been plenty of examples in recent history, under Governments of both complexions, of the dangers which arise from laxity in this respect. The hon. Lady should have a recent memory of events behind the Iron Curtain, in Hungary and elsewhere. Surely that is a lesson to us all that vigilance by the Government in these matters is of continuing importance.
I am glad that Mr. Miller is now able to join this expedition, which I hope will be a great success, and that he will play an effective and proper part. Regarding that case, and all the other cases to which the hon. Lady has alluded, in the interests of this country and the Commonwealth as a whole I cannot go further than I have gone. The hon. Lady has gibed and chided me for being as frank as I have been. I have given my reasons. In judging cases of this sort which come to him from time to time—they are very rare—my noble Friend will act with great responsibility and with a proper concern for the interests not only of the United Kingdom but of individuals affected.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.